Liverpool set to ban McDonald's Happy Meals in a bid to cut childhood obesity

[Demi]

The Mail on Sunday
London, UK
24 February, 2008


Liverpool set to ban McDonald's Happy Meals in a bid to cut childhood obesity

McDonald's Happy Meals are to be banned in Liverpool over claims they are contributing to the epidemic of childhood obesity.

The city council is planning to outlaw the meals on the grounds that they are damaging the heath of children - particularly as they offer free toys in order to encourage parents to buy junk food for their children.

The Liberal Democrat-controlled authority claims the credit for taking the lead in the campaign that led to the ban on smoking in public places.

Members of Liverpool City Council's Childhood Obesity Scrutiny Group want a bye-law that would forbid the sale of fast foot accompanied by toys.

Councillors say the promotional items are used to boost sales through the "Pester Power" phenomenon - children pestering parents for Happy Meal toys.

The scrutiny Group has ordered a report from town hall officials that would pave the way for the bye-law that would be the first of its kind in the UK.

Lib Dem councillor Paul Twigger said: "The Scrutiny Group is recommending that a bye-law be enforced to stop the circulation of free toys associated with junk food promotions.

"We consider it is high time that cash-hungry vultures like McDonald's are challenged over their marketing policies which are directly aimed at promoting unhealthy eating among children.

"Childhood obesity is a dire threat to the health in this country and it needs to be nipped in the bud urgently.

"Children are directly targeted with junk food and McDonald's use the Happy Meals to exploit Pester Power of children against which many parents give in.

"In most Happy Meals the toy is sold with a burgers containing four or five tablespoons of sugar, along with high-calorie fries and milkshakes.

"These fattening meals are being shamelessly promoted through free toys and it is clear that it is going to take legislation to combat the practice.

The most calorific Happy Meal - cheeseburger, small fries and chocolate milkshake - has 740 kcals, almost half of children's recommended daily allowance of 1600.

The healthiest meal on the menu comprises carrot sticks, nuggets, and mineral water, with 200 Kcals.

But Lib Dem Cllr Twigger said: "They know that most children won't want carrots and water but put them on the menu to stave off the criticism from health campaigners."

Toys that have been dished out include the board game Twister, Top Trump cards and football-related collectables.

"By offering these toys they are preying on the needs and desires of children in order to cash-in on the sale of junk food," said Cllr Twigger, 26.

Healthy eating campaigners are backing Liverpool council's move.

Food Commission spokesman Ian Tokelove said: "McDonald's are very skilled at getting children into their restaurants and know how to tug on the purse strings of parents.

"But a lot of the food on the Happy Meal menu can put children health at risk if eaten too regularly."

Sustain spokesman Richard Watts said: "We would support every effort to stop toys being sold with junk food. It will be see how Liverpool Council fares.

"We need to take radical action against the massive junk food-related health problems we have got with child obesity and heart disease."

In 2004, Liverpool sought a bye-law to ban smoking in public places and it is widely acknowledged that the move played a significant role in leading to the ban imposed last year.

Cllr Twigg believes the new move in Liverpool could begin locally and lead to a similar nationwide ban.

He said: "The Liverpool smoke-free team had a great success with their campaign and their ideas played a massive part in the nationwide blanket ban last year.

"There's no reason why we can't achieve a similar feat."

The plan to impose the bye-law banning Happy Meals will be put to a Select Committee of Liverpool Council at the end of the month.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=517955&in_page_id=1770

[M Levac]

It's a start. But I'd go further. Take out all the carbs from McD's menu and the net result is McD goes out of business in about 3 weeks.

[Sandollar]

I was thrilled to find out that the McDonald's in my neighbourhood CLOSED DOWN!! (doing the happy dance!)

It was right across the road from the highschool and it still couldn't stay afloat. They couldn't get any staff or customers.

I love this neighbourhood. The KFC had to close down too...

[joedoro]

I wonder what all those Pima Indian kids did with the toys from their happy meals - oops I forgot, they got obese 75 years before there were happy meals

[bsheets]

I was thrilled to find out that the McDonald's in my neighbourhood CLOSED DOWN!! (doing the happy dance!)

It was right across the road from the highschool and it still couldn't stay afloat. They couldn't get any staff or customers.

I love this neighbourhood. The KFC had to close down too...
Woooo! Go your neighbourhood!!

[64dodger]

Are they going to ban the candy bars, cokes, chips, cookies, carkes and the like from all of the grocery stores?

[kyrasdad]

Are they going to ban the candy bars, cokes, chips, cookies, carkes and the like from all of the grocery stores?
That is the heart of the matter. While I'm no fan of McDonald's, I think that if all of them worldwide were to close today, a year from now, there would be no dent in obesity rates. It goes deeper.

[ElleH]

Are they going to ban the candy bars, cokes, chips, cookies, carkes and the like from all of the grocery stores?

I agree. Please. You can't legislate everything.

[Calianna]

That is the heart of the matter. While I'm no fan of McDonald's, I think that if all of them worldwide were to close today, a year from now, there would be no dent in obesity rates. It goes deeper.

You're exactly right. As long as nutritionists and doctors keep pushing people to eat grains at such massive rates, nothing is going to change as far as obesity is concerned. They are simply blinding themselves to the fact that all starches raise blood sugar and therefore insulin levels and therefore body fat storage. They KNOW this.

They know that no matter what minisucle amounts of fiber a whole grain or baked potato might have in it, and despite how much they've been taught in school about the need for whole grains, they know that such massive quantities of carbs are going to go to fat storage. They know the math, they know how much blood sugar we need at any given time, they know how much blood sugar the brain needs to function, and they know how much blood sugar a single potato or slice of whole grain bread, or bowl of oatmeal will convert to.

There's just some kind of blindness, some kind of disconnect in their insulin flooded brains, as if they think that our pancreas lives in some kind of la-la land and only provides insulin to convert the excess starch to fat if it happens to be a refined carb, but leaves the whole grain starches alone.

[rightnow]

Yeah, I really do think McDonald's gets the blame because they are so pervasive. But you know, most people eat a lot more carbs and calories when they have pizza. And it doesn't help to get McDonald's unless you also get KFC, Taco Bell, Carl's Jr., Jack in the Box, Sonic -- we could be here all day with the list, not counting the mom&pop places making the same stuff.

And did I mention that most chinese places are mondo carbs, even the 'plain meats' usually have sugar sauces (my kid, if we do chinese buffet, wants to eat rice, mac&cheese, and corn, with "frozen dessert product" (not ice cream, whatever it is) after... what chinese has to do with any of that, who knows?). The list goes on. The food court in any mall is usually pretty killer. Hey, giant pretzels will kill you too.

The only reason Olive Garden isn't blamed for killing off our population is because it's less convenient (no drive-through) and too expensive for people to eat there 5+ times a week. Which is really too bad. 'cause if you gotta die of lousy eating, let it be something that tastes more like OG than McD!

The minute someone says "legislation" my stomach clenches. There is seriously something wrong with half our population that wants to legislate every damn thing, like maybe they didn't get enough proper parenting so they want the government to take over making broad-stroke "rules" to make everybody else behave the way they think everybody else should.

I'm offended that any privately owned business should have to do *anything* they don't choose to do -- that includes smoking (if people don't like it, they don't have to eat there! and I've never been a smoker, hate it), it's the ethics of free enterprise of it -- it's THEIR business. Golf clubs can ban women every day but Wednesday and that isn't allowed in 'public' stuff either but that's seen as 'a private' enterprise even though it is public. Bosh, everything not owned by the government is a private enterprise. If restaurants in new york want to use saturated or trans fats, it's their business -- their clients can choose with their wallets.

If the government is going to go making any kind of "legislation" at all about food, it ought to simply be that those providing the food, provide the details of the contents, so people can choose what they prefer.

To ban the evil fat of the moment from restaurants, while next door they're selling you vodka and next door to that they're selling you Doritos and 44oz Pepsi, is ludicrous.

PJ

[TomX]

Hmm, in a pinch I'll go to McDonalds and get two plain cheeseburgers, rip off the buns, and gobble down the patties. It's not the most satisfying meal, but it works when I need it. I have discovered, though, that there is better fast food. I always look for a joint that grills meat over a flame.

[neverwhere]

I am no fan of junk food either. I agree with Kyras dad though. Obesity goes deeper than just banning food.

But this also sort of seems off to me. People are allowed to decide what to eat and not eat. Parents should be allowed to feed their children happy meals if thats what they want.

I take big offense to people trying to regulate your food based on whats "healthy" or not. Not defending Mcdonalds, so to say, but we all know everyone has different ideas on what constitutes a healthy diet. I'd be screwed if an Atkins hater had the authority to ban bacon from the local groceries stores, for example, because "bacon is fattening."

I disagree with the above poster that said mcdonalds should be stripped of carbs and forced to close. I dont like the idea of government telling me what I can and cannot eat. Ciggarettes kill, alchohol also comes with it's own set of problems, but they are still allowed to be sold. Regulated, sure, but no one is banning those substances.

Right, they make too much money for government.

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but this reeks of fascism to me.

[TBoneMitch]

Legislation can never be the solution, as more laws simply increase the bureaucratic mess that got us there in the first place.

Remember, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

[Mrs. Skip]

This could lead to things we don't like...it all depends on whose idea of healthy we are using...

For example, my own mom (bless her low-fat, high carb heart) feels that McDonald's can be healthy as long as you eat only the bun, lettuce, tomato and fries. You should definitely throw away the meat and cheese, and god forbid, bacon.

My view of healthy is almost the complete opposite. Throw away the bun and fries, and enjoy the meat, cheese, bacon and lettuce &tom.

So if we let someone else (government) decide, whose opinion wins?

[kyrasdad]

Legislation can never be the solution, as more laws simply increase the bureaucratic mess that got us there in the first place. Remember, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.
Actually, I think legislation could make a difference, but not legislation of the kind people bannter about -- closing McDonald's that are in proximity to schools and the like. That's useless.

Legislation that I could see as useful:


Revamp farm subsidies that artificially reduce the price of grains. The entire subsidies mess is one of the primary root causes in my opinion.
Force changes in dietary recommendations that clearly are not working.
Require better labeling of nutritional content in stores and restaurants
Remove all nutritional based marketing. Give us clear, concise, accurate nurtitional values, but don't allow claims of low-carb, low-fat, lite, whole-grain, organic or whatever. It's all gone. Right now, you can put a 'healthy' sheen on Fruit Loops by claiming they are trans fat free, organic and whole grain. Ridiculous. No way to fix that system - just junk it.
Treat sugar, when marketed to children, the same as you treat tobacco. No cartoon characters. No television commercials. Just more or less disallow food marketing aimed at anyone younger than 18.
Pay for physical education in schools. Require and pay for nutritional information. (I know, right now they'd teach the wrong lessons, but point 2 would hopefully help with that. At the very least, both viewpoints could be required).

Now, I wouldn't expect most of these to ever happen. Big Food is very happy with the current situation.

[Angeline]

They are right that publicity aimed at children needs to stop. Would they tolerate publicity clearly aimed at getting the kiddies to smoke? How about a toy with every pack of smokes huh? Or maybe a plastic toy at the bottom of every bottle of vodka. The idea sounds ridiculous but really smoking and drinking is just as damaging as junk food. The tobacco industry tried that no that long ago with their camel character. They called it building brand loyalty

It needs to be banned outright. No marketing of ANYTHING aimed at children. Period.

But seriously, this is only a token gesture to appear to be "doing something" about obesity. On its own it will have no impact. Kyrasdad is right. Until they take the blinders off and start attacking the real cause of obesity, no progress will ever be made. They are Don Quixotes attacking windmills. An apt comparaison since Wikipedia describes the book as :"The novel is considered a satire of orthodoxy, truth, veracity"

[joedoro]

Actually, I think legislation could make a difference, but not legislation of the kind people bannter about -- closing McDonald's that are in proximity to schools and the like. That's useless.

Legislation that I could see as useful:


Revamp farm subsidies that artificially reduce the price of grains. The entire subsidies mess is one of the primary root causes in my opinion.
Force changes in dietary recommendations that clearly are not working.
Require better labeling of nutritional content in stores and restaurants
Remove all nutritional based marketing. Give us clear, concise, accurate nurtitional values, but don't allow claims of low-carb, low-fat, lite, whole-grain, organic or whatever. It's all gone. Right now, you can put a 'healthy' sheen on Fruit Loops by claiming they are trans fat free, organic and whole grain. Ridiculous. No way to fix that system - just junk it.
Treat sugar, when marketed to children, the same as you treat tobacco. No cartoon characters. No television commercials. Just more or less disallow food marketing aimed at anyone younger than 18.
Pay for physical education in schools. Require and pay for nutritional information. (I know, right now they'd teach the wrong lessons, but point 2 would hopefully help with that. At the very least, both viewpoints could be required).

Now, I wouldn't expect most of these to ever happen. Big Food is very happy with the current situation.

Raise grain prices? What do you think will happen to the price of beef, pork, chicken, fish and every other US farmed animal? Do you think that the majority of grain grown in the US goes directly to feeding people?

[waywardsis]

The Scrutiny Group? *shudder*

Ultimately, parents decide what their kids eat and don't eat. Ban toys in Happy Meals all you want, 8-yr-old aren't hitting the drive-thru by themselves.

McDonalds gets picked on, IMO, because they are the most pervasive of the fast food chains but also because it's "low-class" food. Precisely why places like Olive Garden (and Starbucks - full of sugar, sugar and more sugar, and a major hangout for teenaged kids) don't get picked on for unhealthy food. Po' folk don't go to OG or 'Bucks.

And how about we also legislate the supermarkets? No more sugary cereals stocked at child-height. Hell, no more toys or games or colourful cartoon characters on the boxes. No more Froot Roll-ups, chocolate chip granola bars or cookies at child-height either. How about all that food gets stocked on the highest shelf, so kids never ever see it? And we hide it behind spinach, just in case?

I'm all for less fast food, but I'm more for freedom of choice.

[neverwhere]

Wayward, exactly :agree:

As for not marketing things like smokes for kids...isnt it true they had to do away with Joe Kool and the Camel for their respective cigarretes because they were toons? I could swear there was something about that years ago...Or am I making that up?

The point of the happy meal is its a smaller portion, for a kids appetite. And exactly like Sis said, the 8 year olds are going there because their parents take them there. They arent going on their own.

[frankly]

...And how about we also legislate the supermarkets? No more sugary cereals stocked at child-height. Hell, no more toys or games or colourful cartoon characters on the boxes. No more Froot Roll-ups, chocolate chip granola bars or cookies at child-height either.

I wouldn't have an issue with society banning Fruit Loops, Lucky Charms and all the other "part of a complete breakfast" cereals. It's not as simple as "freedom of choice", some very stupid people have children, and assume that anything that's legal is "approved" for their kids. I'm hope the Liverpool bill passes, I think hundreds of years from now, people will be amazed that giant corporations dominated our society so much, that they were allowed hurt our children while we collectively sat around and did nothing. No differently than we now view such practices as this:

http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/victorianbritain/industrial/images/industrial4b.jpg

[kyrasdad]

Raise grain prices? What do you think will happen to the price of beef, pork, chicken, fish and every other US farmed animal? Do you think that the majority of grain grown in the US goes directly to feeding people?
Read again. I didn't say to raise grain prices - I said to remove subsidies that artificially lower them. Yes, I'm aware that grains sit at the bottom of our protein food chain, and that removing subsidies may increase prices on meat. That's okay from a number of perspectives, since the subsidies also make import of less expensive alternatives impossible. There are other excellent reasons to remove grain (and sugar) subsidies, but the fact that we are subsidizing the very thing that makes our society obese seems counterproductive, even negligent to me.

[neverwhere]

I wouldn't have an issue with society banning Fruit Loops, Lucky Charms and all the other "part of a complete breakfast" cereals. It's not as simple as "freedom of choice", some very stupid people have children, and assume that anything that's legal is "approved" for their kids. I'm hope the Liverpool bill passes, I think hundreds of years from now, people will be amazed that giant corporations dominated our society so much, that they were allowed hurt our children while we collectively sat around and did nothing. No differently than we now view such practices as this:

http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/victorianbritain/industrial/images/industrial4b.jpg

UM, you are grasping at straws with that picture.

I have an issue with society banning a lot of things, whether it's crap or not. It is very scary, big brother ish. It IS about freedom of choice.

So if the powers that be decides that high fat/low carb is dangerous (and trust me, doesnt the low carb community already face a lot of doubt and scrutiny from the masses?), would you sit quietly and happily let restaurants ban butter because "stupid people" exist, and might eat such an unhealthy thing?

Opinion about health and nutrition differ, public opinion changes, we learn new things all the time. It wasn't so long ago that margarine was touted as the best, healthiest spread for you. Now we realize its a few molecules away from plastic.

My point is not that Mcdonalds might some day be considered "healthy" food. My point is that I want the choice of whether I eat, and feed my children, butter or margarine, fries or carrot sticks.

Dont we hate the food police, who push certain foods on us or tell us how to eat? Well, this is the real food police. It makes me shudder.

Not to mention, it's a simply futile effort. Toys in happy meals have NOTHING to do with obesity problems. Not to mention, if worrying about Happy Meals is what legislature is doing with it's time, Liverpool is screwed.

Sort of like how American Congress is worrying about Roger Clemens doing steroids, when there are much more pressing issues in the world to worry about.....

[KarenJ]

Read again. I didn't say to raise grain prices - I said to remove subsidies that artificially lower them. Yes, I'm aware that grains sit at the bottom of our protein food chain, and that removing subsidies may increase prices on meat. That's okay from a number of perspectives, since the subsidies also make import of less expensive alternatives impossible. There are other excellent reasons to remove grain (and sugar) subsidies, but the fact that we are subsidizing the very thing that makes our society obese seems counterproductive, even negligent to me.

It is negligent, borderline criminal IMO. There are no subsidies for broccoli, or pastured animals for that matter. All those millions of acres of corn (that used to be, and should be prairie) could be better utilized for grazing livestock. So many problems could be solved with our free sunlight.

People have been so brainwashed by the food industry that they don't even know what food is anymore. Couple that with nefarious (follow the money) public health recommendations and we're screwed.
I am pro freedom, pro capitalist, pro America- but if people are to be given a choice they should at least know the truth before they make their decision. We need to be educating our people on the right foods, not legislating a bunch of bans on the (supposedly) wrong foods.

[kyrasdad]

Not to mention, it's a simply futile effort. Toys in happy meals have NOTHING to do with obesity problems. Not to mention, if worrying about Happy Meals is what legislature is doing with it's time, Liverpool is screwed.
Well, banning foods and limiting marketing efforts are entirely different things. We already limit marketing to children for things like tobacco and alcohol. Even from the perspective of the low fat vs. low carb wars, limiting marketing that encourages kids to want things like French Fries or ice cream isn't limiting anyone's choices, at all. Corporations do not enjoy the level of speech protection you do. We regulate advertising constantly. We do not allow certain claims, we do not allow certain kinds of ads at all, we do not allow certain products to be advertised in certain media, based on what is good for society as a whole. While good parenting is the heart of the matter, there is some good done in not helping set the desire for these products in the first place. Two year olds who have never been in a McDonald's know what it is, and know they want it -- all through marketing. While a parent can always tell them no, there isn't any good reason to allow it to happen in the first place.

[frankly]

UM, you are grasping at straws with that picture.

I don't think so, it wasn't that long ago and is related to the issue of child welfare; the same as this issue.


I have an issue with society banning a lot of things, whether it's crap or not. It is very scary, big brother ish. It IS about freedom of choice.


It's not scary at all, society bans many things on behalf of the welfare of children; we don't allow people to prostitute their children or exploit them for pornography. We don't allow people the right to beat their children or starve them. We don't even allow people the right to refuse to educate their children. Like it or don't, your "freedom of choice" stops where the collective says it does, especially when it comes to the welfare of children.


...My point is not that Mcdonalds might some day be considered "healthy" food. My point is that I want the choice of whether I eat, and feed my children, butter or margarine, fries or carrot sticks.


I understand the point you are making, there are a good number of people who would construe our WOE as dangerous too. Unfortunately, a couple of decades of really bad nutritional science have brought us to the point, where a large portion of our society are easily duped into thinking fruit loops are great as well as "low in fat"! I think in the face of the childhood obesity epidemic, the science and society will have no choice but to come around; I guess we'll see. I think this story is a good sign that we are starting to see the light.



...Not to mention, it's a simply futile effort. Toys in happy meals have NOTHING to do with obesity problems. Not to mention, if worrying about Happy Meals is what legislature is doing with it's time, Liverpool is screwed.


I think they're reacting to a very real and present danger to the health of their children. I would be far more worried if they ignored it and did nothing, like so many other places. The toys and other incentives make me sick, they are a big part of the obesity problem. I'm also tired of big companies being allowed to buy broadcasting time and using it to lie to my children and con them into badgering me to purchasing product for them. Children are constantly exposed to commercials for poisonous garbage which distract them with slick and amusing graphics while dropping words like "nutritious", "vitamins", "energy", "they're grrrreat", etc. It's time we put a stop to it; I'm not even so much talking about restricting your right to let your kids drink nothing but soda-pop, but I think it's time we stop big corporations from brainwashing our kids into thinking that it's normal.

Tell me, how is "Liverpool screwed" without their McDonald's Happy Meals? What will become of them?


Sort of like how American Congress is worrying about Roger Clemens doing steroids, when there are much more pressing issues in the world to worry about.....

It's not the same; I agree that the government should not waste it's time fretting over professional athletics. However, I think any level of government has an absolute duty to worry about the welfare of children.

[neverwhere]

I think they're reacting to a very real and present danger to the health of their children. I would be far more worried if they ignored it and did nothing, like so many other places. The toys and other incentives make me sick, they are a big part of the obesity problem. I'm also tired of big companies being allowed to buy broadcasting time and using it to lie to my children and con them into badgering me to purchasing product for them. Children are constantly exposed to commercials for poisonous garbage which distract them with slick and amusing graphics while dropping words like "nutritious", "vitamins", "energy", "they're grrrreat", etc. It's time we put a stop to it; I'm not even so much talking about restricting your right to let your kids drink nothing but soda-pop, but I think it's time we stop big corporations from brainwashing our kids into thinking that it's normal.

Tell me, how is "Liverpool screwed" without their McDonald's Happy Meals? What will become of them?


IMO, Karen J said it right:

I am pro freedom, pro capitalist, pro America- but if people are to be given a choice they should at least know the truth before they make their decision. We need to be educating our people on the right foods, not legislating a bunch of bans on the (supposedly) wrong foods.

It is a matter of personal opinion whether Big companies are "lying" to your children. Again, not everyone believes cereals are unhealthy, and they have the right to decide if it's nutrious or not. I will raise my children on a low sugar/lc woe, and I can guarantee there are a lot of people out there who are oging to think I deprive them or kill them with bacon. But again, I assess the situation, and decided eggs and bacon are better for my kid than cinnamon toast crunch. I am grateful to have that choice. I do NOT want that choice taken out of my hands.

YOU as a parent have the responsibility of limiting what your kids see, and shaping their views on what they believe to be true. It's time for parents to stop being mad because society is not raising their children the way they want them to be raised.


Like it or not, companies have the right to advertise. They need to, it's their lifeline. This ties into what Kyra's dad says. I totally agree, KD, that banning foods and limiting marketing to children are two different things. My response is more pointed to the people yelling "thats great, time to ban Mcdonalds altogether."

I understand limiting marketing of questionable things to children, to a certain extent.

I dont believe two year olds know what a mcdonalds is unless their parents take them there. I personally, have NEVER seen Mcdonalds toys advertised on tv. The only adds I've recently seen are two idiots rapping about mcnuggets, and the recent filet o fish ads coming on now, neither geared to children.


Children dont become obese because they see a stupid toy car or something on tv, and then they magically get overfed Mcdonalds. It's up to the parents to bring them there.

A once in a while Mcdonalds kid's meal is NOT going to ruin their health or make them obese. It's up to the parents to set limits. If they want to occasionally give them a small portion, fine. If they chose to not feed their kids that crap at all, even better. But it is up to them to tell the kids "NO. That is bad food and those are bad toys." Little children might be distracted by the cartoonish appearance of the restaurant, but it's the parents responsibility again, to keep them away if that's their wish. Kids are so easily distracted, im sure they arent going to be walking around crying for mcdonalds if they dont normally get fed that. They will forget the playground out there soon enough.

And Frankly, you are taking my words out of context when you ask how Liverpool is screwed. Please dont twist my quote to make your point sound superior. I have already stated the point is not about how people NEED Mcdonalds or Happy Meals. I am saying they are screwed if their legistlature is chasing Mcdonalds around, waving their fist at them.

To me, it's the first step in government telling you what you can and cant eat. Then their control spills into other things. Soon Big Brother is up your ass.

Maybe I am a different sort. I dont like government taking control of every little thing, regardless. I want to make my own decisions what and where to eat.

As for the clemens thing, I cant really comment on British politics, I dont know a lot of their national issues. But to me, it's government going about things in the wrong way, wasting time on silly gestures, when real solutions or problems are being ignored.

It pisses me off when congress wastes their time on idiot Clemens, when maybe they should be worrying about gun laws, unjust wars, etc. So to me, it is sort of the same thing. THAT is truly making the country a safer place for the children. Not banning a .50 dumbass toy from coming with a small fry and shitty nuggets.

Truthfully, parents will STILL take their kids to Mcdonalds, only now they will overfeed their kids on bigger portions, or be wasting their money because their kids cant finish adult sizes.

And why just mcdonalds? Most fast food places have toys and small menus geared for kids. Im hearing nothing about targeting them....

[ReginaW]

It is a matter of personal opinion whether Big companies are "lying" to your children. Again, not everyone believes cereals are unhealthy, and they have the right to decide if it's nutrious or not. I will raise my children on a low sugar/lc woe, and I can guarantee there are a lot of people out there who are oging to think I deprive them or kill them with bacon. But again, I assess the situation, and decided eggs and bacon are better for my kid than cinnamon toast crunch. I am grateful to have that choice. I do NOT want that choice taken out of my hands.

YOU as a parent have the responsibility of limiting what your kids see, and shaping their views on what they believe to be true. It's time for parents to stop being mad because society is not raising their children the way they want them to be raised.


I agree...as a parent, I consider it my responsibility to feed my child, talk to him about dubious claims on televison or any ads he may see, and make the decisions about when he'll eat, what he'll eat and where he'll eat. He rarely eats fast food - but that doesn't mean he never has something at a fast food restaurant....I'm just darn picky about what I'll order for him and if it's McD's, then it's a cheeseburger and apples (no carmel dip thank you very much) and I'll pay for the toy (if he even notices there are toys) because I'm not ordering a Happy Meal for him since I have his milk already with me, or he can have water.

I don't like the idea of legislating what can and can't be sold....advertising tactics are another story......if we leave it to the government to decide what is and isn't healthy, we all know it's going to be bans on butter, bacon, eggs, meat, etc. - cause all that fat will kill you!

[ReginaW]

It's not scary at all, society bans many things on behalf of the welfare of children; we don't allow people to prostitute their children or exploit them for pornography. We don't allow people the right to beat their children or starve them. We don't even allow people the right to refuse to educate their children. Like it or don't, your "freedom of choice" stops where the collective says it does, especially when it comes to the welfare of children.


The conventional wisdom holds that saturated fat, dietary fat and animal foods all make us sick and lead to an early death....sorry, but the *collective* here isn't credible to decide what me and my family can and can't eat.

[Daisymaiz]

Are they going to ban the candy bars, cokes, chips, cookies, carkes and the like from all of the grocery stores?

Exactly. McDonald's is far from the only problem. They are the biggest, most recognizable, therefore easily targeted IMO.

Yes kids are enticed by cartoon characters, toys, and cutesie names for products. But as others have said, they are not taking themselves to fast food restaurants and buying the junk. Their parents are. I do allow my kids to have fast food once in a while, however my 7 year old does not whine and cry if we drive by McDonald's and I say NO, not today. She knows I will not give in to that. She knows that throwing tantrums is unacceptable behavior. She knows the choice is not hers. Sadly the same cannot be said for many families. A spoiled kid becomes a much bigger problem than a Happy Meal once in a while.

People who do take their kids to eat at McDonalds multiple times per week might stop if there was no Happy Meal-however they would probably just end up taking their business elsewhere, to a place that does have a kid's meal of some sort, or buying starchy sugar-filled convenience foods to eat at home. Many would continue to go there and just buy them a regular burger and fries instead-the toys are junk anyway. I highly doubt that this is the answer to cutting childhood obesity.

[rightnow]

Well, I'm sorry to say that prior to understanding how horrible all this stuff really was, I was, as far as I could see, a 'typical' overworked mom who ate plenty of fast food and so did my kid.

So if you had removed McD, Taco Bell, etc. from my radar, would we have been more healthy?

You must be kidding. McDonald's is probably healthier than Top Ramen, boxed Mac&Cheese, Hot Pockets, Pop Tarts, etc.

Eating McDonald's often is a SYMPTOM of a much larger issue with food, with time, with education, with nutrition. It is one manifestation of it and it happens to be the one people can more easily "see". But think about it. Even if someone ate McDonald's 5 times a week, let's see, there are approximately 21 meals a week going on. More if you count Taco Bell's brilliant marketing slogan "fourthmeal" -- the meal between dinner and breakfast -- since carbs can't keep anybody full. (Note: in evaluating former fast food eating I saw that Taco Bell was vastly worse on calories and carbs than other places, when you count how much I had to eat to get the same level of fullness.)

So if we subtract 5 from the 21, the other 16 meals matter too, and what's being fed the kid then?

School lunch is the devil, a nightmare. Let's subtract 5 from that and say there's still 11. So what's being fed the kid then?

If it turned out that parents who regularly fed their kids fast food were, as the alternative, having healthy, low-sugar/starch, home-cooked meals, then sure, banning fast food would improve health.

Parents don't drive through McDonald's for nutrition. They do it because they are exhausted, they don't have much time, they don't FEEL like planning, shopping, cooking, cleaning, etc. -- they just want to eat and get it over with so they can move on to something else.

That really isn't about food. It just acts-out through food.

PJ

[Daisymaiz]

I don't like the idea of legislating what can and can't be sold....advertising tactics are another story......if we leave it to the government to decide what is and isn't healthy, we all know it's going to be bans on butter, bacon, eggs, meat, etc. - cause all that fat will kill you!

Very true-be careful what you wish for.

[pennink]

k, here I come being devil's advocate

WE know that low carb foods are healthy.
The mainstream is stuck on the low fat thing.

here's the deal: both work. They do. I know I've lost a ton on low fat, it's just horrible and tasteless.

the problem, imo, is that people, in general aren't following EITHER. Theyre eating processed foods, fast foods, too much foods... you know?

If the whole food pyramid turned upside down would the obesity crisis completely go away? I doubt it. Ppl would still be exhausted, not plan, and go for the yum factor. People will always be after comfort and ease.

Banning is not going to work. Education is not going to work (it's NOT--people STILL drink, smoke, and have unsafe sex... so education only helps those who want to listen)

HOWEVER, getting the frickin' corn products out of everything just might. Maybe if biofuels become the norm, corn will be too expensive to use in everything, people will lose weight, whole grains will be saved for livestock.

[rightnow]

whole grains will be saved for livestock.

The corps which now own most of agriculture, and chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, and mega junk food producers, are unfortunately for the most part not the companies that own the cows.

The only thing making grain more valuable will do, is drive the beef industry into the ground and make it even more "necessary" for us to buy the junk food. And then the medicine.

PJ

[Calianna]

I don't like the idea of legislating what can and can't be sold....advertising tactics are another story......if we leave it to the government to decide what is and isn't healthy, we all know it's going to be bans on butter, bacon, eggs, meat, etc. - cause all that fat will kill you!

Exactly.

We all know that they're not all up in arms about McD's food being fed to kids because they're concerned about the massive carb overload from the starchy bun, the huge pile of potato in those fries, and the sugary soft drink. They're concerned about the fat in the burger and the fact that the potato is fried.

If McD's suddenly switched gears and happy meals consisted of green salad served with fat free dressing, broiled fish, or broiled skinless chicken breast, topped with fat free mayo, on huge whole grain buns, with baked potatoes the size of footballs on the side (no butter or sour cream!), plus a big glass of fruit juice, they'd be applauding how wonderful McD's was for kids.

[frankly]

YOU as a parent have the responsibility of limiting what your kids see, and shaping their views on what they believe to be true. It's time for parents to stop being mad because society is not raising their children the way they want them to be raised.


Yes, by saying "NO" to big corporations that want to lie to my children on television; I am taking responsibility for shaping my children's views. Taking the opposing viewpoint is and remaining ambivalent, is forfeiting your responsibility to your children and to society as a whole. I love the division you make between "parents" and "society", they are as much a part of the society as everyone else, certainly more so than an abstract entity like a corporation.


Like it or not, companies have the right to advertise. They need to, it's their lifeline.

No they do not have a right to advertise in any way they want. We as a society grant corporations the rights we chose to extend them. We don't have to give them any rights whatsoever, they are not citizens, they are constructs which we define. People have been brainwashed into treating corporations as though they are individuals that should enjoy "human" rights, it's a silly model, they are not like us at all.



I understand limiting marketing of questionable things to children, to a certain extent.

Too bad, you can't have it both ways. Either they have restrictions on their "rights" or they don't; if you accept that they do, then we as a society get to define those "rights".


I personally, have NEVER seen Mcdonalds toys advertised on tv.

That has to be the most incredulous statement so far. Assuming you do own a TV, have you ever watched any children's programming (pbs excluded)?


Children dont become obese because they see a stupid toy car or something on tv, and then they magically get overfed Mcdonalds. It's up to the parents to bring them there.

Yep, it's parents who ultimately give in to the begging and whining which was inspired by the promise of the "new" toys, the happy clown, the associated "fun", the "delicious" food. The children who've been barraged by television and their peers to only ever ask for McDonalds, when asked what they'd like to eat. They shouldn't give in, but then they shouldn't have to sit idle and let a giant corporation beguile their children either.


A once in a while Mcdonalds kid's meal is NOT going to ruin their health or make them obese.


So, the odd cigarette wouldn't kill them either, what's your point?


It's up to the parents to set limits.


Agreed, limits on both their kids consumption and on the companies that would prey on them.


And Frankly, you are taking my words out of context when you ask how Liverpool is screwed. Please dont twist my quote to make your point sound superior. I have already stated the point is not about how people NEED Mcdonalds or Happy Meals. I am saying they are screwed if their legistlature is chasing Mcdonalds around, waving their fist at them.


I'm happy for them, they're lucky that their elected officials are working for their constituents against the interests of a corporation.


Maybe I am a different sort. I dont like government taking control of every little thing, regardless. I want to make my own decisions what and where to eat.

We aren't talking about them "taking control of every little thing", we are talking about society restricting corporations which hurt the health of children. Anyway, I hope you are a "different sort"; it wouldn't bode well for the future of our society to have too many people that care more about the "rights" of a giant corporation than the well being of their fellow man.


As for the clemens thing, I cant really comment on British politics, I dont know a lot of their national issues. But to me, it's government going about things in the wrong way, wasting time on silly gestures, when real solutions or problems are being ignored.

It pisses me off when congress wastes their time on idiot Clemens, when maybe they should be worrying about gun laws, unjust wars, etc. So to me, it is sort of the same thing. THAT is truly making the country a safer place for the children. Not banning a .50 dumbass toy from coming with a small fry and shitty nuggets.

I already agreed on the Clemens thing, and it has nothing to do with this. If banning the use of a "dumbass toy" as an enticement to exploit children, helps make for healthier kids, what would be your objection? Also, go ask how much the "dumbass toy" costs if you don't buy the Happy Meal; it's a lot more than fifty cents. People have speculated that McDonalds actually loses money on some of the Happy Meals, and see it as an investment in longer term brand loyalty - as well as an opportunity to get parents and older kids into the restaurant.


And why just mcdonalds? Most fast food places have toys and small menus geared for kids. Im hearing nothing about targeting them....

I agree, like I said, I'd be happy to see all of the advertising of garbage and enticements targeted at children banned. So be it, good riddance, the world will be a much better place for it.

http://thesituationist.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/ronald-mcdonalds.jpg

[neverwhere]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok. If you so say.

ALthough, your fear of the "giant corporations" coming in the middle of the night to gobble up your children is quite worrisome.

I hope you defeat them.

[Daisymaiz]

Agreed, limits on both their kids consumption and on the companies that would prey on them.

By choosing not to patronize them, if they don't like it. That would be far more effective than a law against throwing a toy in the box. McDonald's would voluntarily give up the Happy Meal if it wasn't a good seller.


If banning the use of a "dumbass toy" as an enticement to exploit children, helps make for healthier kids, what would be your objection?

It doesn't help make for healthier kids.


Yep, it's parents who ultimately give in to the begging and whining which was inspired by the promise of the "new" toys, the happy clown, the associated "fun", the "delicious" food. The children who've been barraged by television and their peers to only ever ask for McDonalds, when asked what they'd like to eat. They shouldn't give in, but then they shouldn't have to sit idle and let a giant corporation beguile their children either.

They should grow a backbone and stop blaming others, because if it's not a giant corporation it will be something else. How many kids try to get their way (on anything, not just food choices) by saying "but all my friends do it....?" A lot. Some parents give in and some parents don't, big corporation or not.

[kyrasdad]

They should grow a backbone and stop blaming others, because if it's not a giant corporation it will be something else. How many kids try to get their way (on anything, not just food choices) by saying "but all my friends do it....?" A lot. Some parents give in and some parents don't, big corporation or not.
Please don't lecture parents, in particular if you aren't one. However, if parents have a responsibility (and nobody is saying they don't) do you also assign one to marketers, or can they advertise anything they wish to children in your mind?

I am not some leftist, anti-corporate zealot. I'm actually a corporate marketer. But to treat a company, an artificial construct as if it has no responsibilities to the larger community while hectoring parents to "grow a backbone" is asinine.

Kids are influenced by marketing, evne if they are Amish and never see television. While I do my best, I cannot magically remove the marketing from the entire universe. I take care of my child, but I should not have to fight Ronald McDonald to do it.

Grow a spine? Seriously?

[frankly]

The conventional wisdom holds that saturated fat, dietary fat and animal foods all make us sick and lead to an early death....sorry, but the *collective* here isn't credible to decide what me and my family can and can't eat.


It's not really the issue here, but I don't know that I totally buy the whole "us vs them" thing. I know many people, who aren't adherents to Low-Carb, and have eaten bacon, butter and beef their entire lives and constantly say things like "if it's bad for you, then how come my father used to eat X, and he lived to 99". Just because the the mass media manages to make it seem like everyone buys into low-carb, low-fat; I don't know that you'd ever have a majority consensus against saturated fat or sizable enough percentage of the population wanting to ban the sale of bacon.

But if the majority decides to take a company to task for using deplorable marketing practices which ultimately harm children, good for them. Why would any of us want to take the side of a clown faced corporation over the health of our children.

[chknwing]

legislating choice is a very scary thing to us americans; but I guess the thinking is if its not a choice and if we would change the choice options then we cant choose it right? If we are going to change the options then it needs to be done across the board from sodas to pizza and that my friend is not going to happen any time soon. Slopping down burgers and fries with a milkshake is as american as apple pie; and there are a lucky few out there who can do this daily and not suffer any consequences. I dont know what the answer is really here; but I do know that Mcdonald's is not the only culprit here and honeslty I like being able to go through a drive through and getting a big and tasty throw the bun away and munch on the burger and veggies. Yes its true they sell us stuff that we dont need in our food and they alter flavors so that they are so potent that nothing natural seems to compare: there is evil there to be sure; but my thinking here is if stop eating this stuff; then they cant make a profit and therefore have to rethink there strategy. Eating out was always meant to be a once or twice a month thing; it has now become a way of life for most our crazy lives..the revamping is gonna have to be on every level if there is gonna be some real effort to produce food that is healthy, and profitable...ok enuff of my stream of concsiousness here..time to go make so shrimp with butter,,,YUMMMM :agree:

[kyrasdad]

People have been brainwashed into treating corporations as though they are individuals that should enjoy "human" rights, it's a silly model, they are not like us at all.

Yep, it's parents who ultimately give in to the begging and whining which was inspired by the promise of the "new" toys, the happy clown, the associated "fun", the "delicious" food. The children who've been barraged by television and their peers to only ever ask for McDonalds, when asked what they'd like to eat. They shouldn't give in, but then they shouldn't have to sit idle and let a giant corporation beguile their children either.
Two points here that pierce the heart of the matter, that deserve everyone's attention.

NOBODY is asking the government to bullodoze McDonald's. (Well nobody reasonable).

NOBODY is telling McDonald's they can't advertise within the law (and there are already laws governing what they can say, and to who, so this shouldn't be a new concept to anyone). They are saying that it would be helpful if marketing to children were to vanish when in particular it comes from fast and junk food companies during an obesity and diabetes epidemic.

You'd think from some of the shrill and unreasonable reactions to suggestions that we moderate what a company can tell children, that we were ready with the bulldozers at the doors of Burger King and McDonald's.

[neverwhere]

Please don't lecture parents, in particular if you aren't one. However, if parents have a responsibility (and nobody is saying they don't) do you also assign one to marketers, or can they advertise anything they wish to children in your mind?

I am not some leftist, anti-corporate zealot. I'm actually a corporate marketer. But to treat a company, an artificial construct as if it has no responsibilities to the larger community while hectoring parents to "grow a backbone" is asinine.

Kids are influenced by marketing, evne if they are Amish and never see television. While I do my best, I cannot magically remove the marketing from the entire universe. I take care of my child, but I should not have to fight Ronald McDonald to do it.

Grow a spine? Seriously?

I dont get it though. Why do you think you have to fight Ronald McDOnald?Why cant you just teach your children to just say no? Please, dont take it personal, I am not attacking your parenting skills. I am just trying to figure out why everyone is so scared of "marketing" reaching their children.

Yes, marketing is powerful. You especially must know that. But isn't the teaching and examples you set for your children in the long run much more powerful than some dumb commercials? I know better than to believe commercials for debt solutions or ambulance chaser lawyers you see on daytime tv, for example. I was raised to know better than to follow what you see blindly.

You need to give your children a little more credit. So WHAT if they are enticed by the commercial? You teach them NO.

I dont care how many times you see that clown, if you dont bring your children there, they dont get to eat it. They cant crave or miss something they dont get.

Not everything sold at Mcdonalds is crap food anyway. Is it the best food? No, of course not. But to compare marketing Mcdonalds to selling alchohol or guns is just not the same to me.

Maybe because it's food, I feel differently. And maybe that is wrong. I just don't believe taking away people's choices are the right way to go about things.

Daisy said: By choosing not to patronize them, if they don't like it. That would be far more effective than a law against throwing a toy in the box. McDonald's would voluntarily give up the Happy Meal if it wasn't a good seller.

I agree. I mean no offense to anyone, I just think that people are fooling themselves if they think banning the clown is going to solve the issues. That doesnt even scratch the surface.

[Daisymaiz]

Please don't lecture parents, in particular if you aren't one. However, if parents have a responsibility (and nobody is saying they don't) do you also assign one to marketers, or can they advertise anything they wish to children in your mind?

I am not some leftist, anti-corporate zealot. I'm actually a corporate marketer. But to treat a company, an artificial construct as if it has no responsibilities to the larger community while hectoring parents to "grow a backbone" is asinine.

Kids are influenced by marketing, evne if they are Amish and never see television. While I do my best, I cannot magically remove the marketing from the entire universe. I take care of my child, but I should not have to fight Ronald McDonald to do it.

Grow a spine? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. I have 3 kids, thanks, and I work with delinquent teenagers, so yeah I realize that kids are influenced by advertising, however I also realize that it is my job to set a good example and teach them to make their own choices. My 7 year old and I have conversations all the time how misleading commercials can be, in particular the ones that make every new toy seem AMAZING and like something she has to have RIGHT NOW. She might still want the toy, but she understands that it isn't going to change her life. She also knows that if I her dad and I say no, that's the answer.

I don't claim to be the perfect parent, no one is. Like I said before, my kids do get fast food on occasion. They would probably eat it every day if we would let them, but we don't. I don't think it's asinine to expect parents to take responsibility and think for themselves instead of blaming advertising and corporations for the way they choose to spend their money.

I want my kids to be healthy and happy, as I'm sure we all do. I do my best too, but I really don't feel as if I am fighting with Ronald McDonald. :q:

[chknwing]

the truth is that marketing is in most ways more influential than a parent can ever be....its everywhere from the tv we watch to the interenet we access to the streets we walk and it WORKS!! Parents need some support from the companies that take there money. Especially if your a single parent...if you work 18 hour days with two jobs how in the world are you going to know that your kids are eating the way they should be...yea in an ideal world...parenting should have the most influence over the children in the household but the reality is that for most households this is just not the case; no matter how hard the parents may try.

[neverwhere]

the truth is that marketing is in most ways more influential than a parent can ever be....its everywhere from the tv we watch to the interenet we access to the streets we walk and it WORKS!! Parents need some support from the companies that take there money. Especially if your a single parent...if you work 18 hour days with two jobs how in the world are you going to know that your kids are eating the way they should be...yea in an ideal world...parenting should have the most influence over the children in the household but the reality is that for most households this is just not the case; no matter how hard the parents may try.

This is true. I will concede to that point.

But do you guys really feel like advertising fast food to children is this huge problem? Do you really feel like you are "fighting" Ronald McDonald?

I'd love to solve childhood obesity, but I just think this Mcdonalds thing is an empty gesture. I also think it sets a dangerous precedent when governments decide what is healthy or not. Maybe living an "alternative" eating lifestyle has made me paranoid. I dunno.

I'm also curious what people think will happen? I am fascinated to see what happens in Liverpool with the absense of Happy Meals.

I think we are all debating several different issues at once, so some of this is getting convoluted. There was hinting about about how Mcdonalds should be closed, so that sparked the side debate about government deciding what's good and not good. Then we had the original debate about marketing.

I have a feeling this whole thread is much ado about nothing. It won't make a whit of a difference, I fear. I look forward to finding out.

[Daisymaiz]

the truth is that marketing is in most ways more influential than a parent can ever be....its everywhere from the tv we watch to the interenet we access to the streets we walk and it WORKS!! Parents need some support from the companies that take there money. Especially if your a single parent...if you work 18 hour days with two jobs how in the world are you going to know that your kids are eating the way they should be...yea in an ideal world...parenting should have the most influence over the children in the household but the reality is that for most households this is just not the case; no matter how hard the parents may try.


I respectfully disagree. In the long run, parents have a bigger influence on their children than anything else, even if it doesn't always appear that way.

Even the best parents can not guarantee that their children will always make the right choices. All we can do is be honest with them about the world, and teach them the best we can.

[pennink]

We set the rules. We start them off.

No, I can't protect my daughter from everything, especially now she's a teen, but I know I gave her my values and I see she uses them.

I've seen the opposite: parents who are not consistent and do not instil values for various reasons (some just want to be their kids' friend instead of parent and give in so there are fewer conflicts).

If it's not a happy meal, it'll be some other 'thing'.

[LessLiz]

I think we should outlaw everything I think we should outlaw. Then we should outlaw everyone whining about it.

I'll get to outlawing cereal and McDonald's one day, but only after I've outlawed 60s and 70s style clothes and legislated that only classic styles of clothing be sold because that is what I look good in.

But the first thing I'm outlawing is the word No since people have such a devil of a time with it. :D

[neverwhere]

I think we should outlaw everything I think we should outlaw. Then we should outlaw everyone whining about it.

I'll get to outlawing cereal and McDonald's one day, but only after I've outlawed 60s and 70s style clothes and legislated that only classic styles of clothing be sold because that is what I look good in.

But the first thing I'm outlawing is the word No since people have such a devil of a time with it. :D

Bwhahaha. I'd also appreicate it if you would outlaw working, because I dont like it. My job is just not healthy for my state of mind. Please??? :hyper:

[TheCaveman]

How much does the health-minded Liverpudlian pay for the poor dietary choices of his fellow townsfolk? Your freedom to choose what food your children eat ends where my freedom not to pay for your mistakes begins.

Is there anything else you'd like to do that's going to cost me money? If so, I'll prepare to discuss the matter with my elected officials.

Because there is only so much money to go around, I'd like it to be spent on health rather than your freedom to charge me for your illness. Kids are fat and parents are broke and fat, and it is time to do them a favor instead of McDonalds. Pretty small favor, admittedly, but we'll take it.

Someday, in a world of limited resources, we must come to understand that the only humane public policy is that we mutually agree to coerce those who believe that the money is endless. Someday we will recognize real freedoms, instead of the cheap freedoms touted in defense of McDonalds.

Should children be fat and sick because of their parents' bad food choices? If that's your idea of freedom, I'm out.

So, the odd cigarette wouldn't kill them either, what's your point?

Owned.

[pennink]

I want to outlaw bad grammar.

[frankly]

By choosing not to patronize them, if they don't like it. That would be far more effective than a law against throwing a toy in the box. McDonald's would voluntarily give up the Happy Meal if it wasn't a good seller.

I don't patronize them, and I don't want them communicating anything directly to my children. It's a chicken and the egg point, McDonalds made the Happy Meal successful, through deplorable marketing and the insidious toy bribe, it's an immensely profitable investment for them. McDonalds will do whatever is most profitable, that's what corporations do. Heroin dealers would "voluntarily give up" selling Heroin too, if Heroin wasn't a good seller; how does profit justify it?


It doesn't help make for healthier kids.


I disagree, I think it tells children a very important health message. It says, loudly and clearly, "This food is not good for you." instead of letting McDonalds tell them.. psst hey kid.. you are "loving it!"


They should grow a backbone and stop blaming others, because if it's not a giant corporation it will be something else....

No, I think they are finally showing some backbone and standing up to big corporations. Perhaps it will lead to parents all over asserting their right, to stop corporations from speaking directly to the formative minds of children. The lack of backbone displayed in the last 30 or so years is what's pathetic; the complacency, sitting back while giant corporations cranked the carcinogenic colour-flavour wheel and hoodwinked children into begging for garbage non-foods at the behest of cartoon characters with easy to remember jingles.

I'm sick to death of the whole greedy, corrupt chain of unfettered child abuse propagated by big corporations. Pop and candy machines in the schools, the rec centres, the subsidized cafeterias, the never ending commercials and the billboards and product placement, all of it geared to the profits of a greedy few without regards for the health or well being of children. I think it's about time people stopped blaming the parents for everything, and starting standing beside them and facing the real problems.

[side-rant]
I also despise the armchair parents, I bet most parents reading this are as sick of them as I am. You hear them all the time, what they would do and how they would handle things. People who's only practical experience with child rearing was 30 years ago, or those who have yet to have children or never will. They always seem to be the one's with the strongest opinions and make up the majority voice of the "blame the parent"arians. It's like listening to the rich talk about what they would do if they were poor; as clueless and out of touch as it is annoying.[/side-rant]

[Daisymaiz]

I think we should outlaw everything I think we should outlaw. Then we should outlaw everyone whining about it.

I'll get to outlawing cereal and McDonald's one day, but only after I've outlawed 60s and 70s style clothes and legislated that only classic styles of clothing be sold because that is what I look good in.

But the first thing I'm outlawing is the word No since people have such a devil of a time with it. :D

:lol: :lol: :thup: How about Cadbury Eggs? They are far more evil than McDonald's IMO.

[Daisymaiz]

Heroin dealers would "voluntarily give up" selling Heroin too, if Heroin wasn't a good seller;


Exactly! I'm not saying the profit justifies it. I'm saying vote with your wallet. A drop in profits gets a company's attention faster than anything else.

Alcohol companies aren't supposed to market to teenagers. Do teenagers still drink?

Heroin dealers aren't allowed to market to anyone. Do people still use heroin? They sure do.

[KarenJ]

Here is a hypothetical situation (albeit slightly wishful thinking):

Let's say that all the major health institutions flip their dietary recommendations. Now, the schools, nursing homes, hospitals, prisons, etc ALL must provide low carb meals if they are receiving federal funding. All the nutrition guidelines are changed. Americans are now told to eat low carb.

What do you think McDonalds would do then?

Daisymaiz, good point.
I dunno, my 11 year old is beginning to think I'm a freak, as she gets none of the stuff that other kids get "and those kids are fine". As they get older it's getting harder and harder. The Rebellion is upon us. If we withhold too much, it becomes forbidden fruit. I can shut off the TV (which we do), but we can't keep her in a vacuum.

It's easier with my 5 yo. Just eat the meat.

[chknwing]

But do you guys really feel like advertising fast food to children is this huge problem? Do you really feel like you are "fighting" Ronald McDonald? .

the fight is a deeper one and Mcdonalds and the rest of the food chains dont understand that what they are offering not just to the kids, but to adults as well, is in some cases, just as pwerful as some kind of drug. I can only relate my own teenage experience....sneaking off to the local convenient store to by my "fix" a dr pepper, bag of chips and a candy bar....some of us are very sensitive to what carbs can do, others maybe not so much. For some of us Mcdonalds is a huge threat to our well being in terms of the choices. I dont advocate legistating a ban but I do advocate pressure being put on the companies such as these to take the time to produce real food instead of the crap they are passing off as food. I used to manage a mcdonalds and I can tell you honestly the only good real food there is the water and the meat that is it..the rest is all over processed junk and this includes the bagged vegetables..no telling what kind of chemical preservatives are in the veggies. I think that london is going to drastic measures to make there point...and maybe we in america here are just not that depserate yet....dont know maybe we should be to force the fast food world to make drastic changes

[kyrasdad]

I dont get it though. Why do you think you have to fight Ronald McDOnald?
Because his company is advertising through multiple means toward my kid. If he's allowed to make his point, I have to counter it. What's not to get about that? They are establishing a desire which I then have to deal with.

Why cant you just teach your children to just say no? Please, dont take it personal, I am not attacking your parenting skills. I am just trying to figure out why everyone is so scared of "marketing" reaching their children.
I do teach her to say no, but she's a child. She's 4. I should not have to compete with a junkfood manufacturer.

Don't take this personally, but you aren't asking the right question. Do you think it's okay for them to advertise that it's fun to kick other children in the crotch? I mean, that's the extension of where it goes. They are using public airwaves. We allow them to do that. They have no right--none--to do it. It is a privilege they are granted by the people. I'm not "scared" of their marketing, but I know how powerful it is. It establishes a desire. The question you should ask, is to turn it around: why are they allowed to access children at all? What have they done to justify it? The burden should be on THEM. Not parents. You seem to want to question parenting skills of others, but never what corporate marketers are doing. Why?

Yes, marketing is powerful. You especially must know that. But isn't the teaching and examples you set for your children in the long run much more powerful than some dumb commercials?
Of course. Nobody is saying that the government should force them to stop serving that food or raise our kids. We're saying that they have abused the privilege of advertising to minors.

I know better than to believe commercials for debt solutions or ambulance chaser lawyers you see on daytime tv, for example. I was raised to know better than to follow what you see blindly.
You're not a five year old. I'm not saying they shouldn't market to you.

You need to give your children a little more credit. So WHAT if they are enticed by the commercial? You teach them NO.
Oh, for crying out loud. I do. What is so hard about the notion that it's a burden that they can place on parents without our consent? Again, you seem to think that people are asking the government to shield our kids entirely. No. We are asking that, in a time of obesity epidemic, that it look at these larger causes and make changes that can affect. I can teach my kids to say no, and have. But for God's sakes, McDonald's has no right to teach them to want these things that are terrible for their health.

I dont care how many times you see that clown, if you dont bring your children there, they dont get to eat it. They cant crave or miss something they dont get.
Complete rubbish. My daughter knew what it was, and that she wanted to go there at two years old, having never been there. She saw clowns on the windows as we drove by. She saw kids at school with the toys. She saw an occasional commercial on television. It's pervasive and an unnecessary exacerbation. She didn't know what it was, but knew she wanted it.

Maybe because it's food, I feel differently. And maybe that is wrong. I just don't believe taking away people's choices are the right way to go about things.
You asked me if I could teach my daughter to say no. I did. Can I teach you that I have not asked anyone to take anyone's choices away?! Nobody said McDonald's should be forced not to sell this or that. Marketing and advertising are a privilege, a regulated one. That's the issue.

I agree. I mean no offense to anyone, I just think that people are fooling themselves if they think banning the clown is going to solve the issues. That doesnt even scratch the surface.
It will not solve the issue, but again, who said it would. It's part of a series of changes needed to help curb this epidemic. No one thing is the solution.

I know you're trying not to be offensive, but you are lecturing about something that you apparently have no experience of. It's not offensive, but you don't seem to see past "don't take choices away" when that's not even the debate at all.

[rightnow]

I actually think the point is sort of missed by it all.

I grew up on fast food, so that was normal for me. I took my kid to fast food, and it was my primary way of eating, because it was normal for me.

Parents don't feed their kids fast food because they are spineless nor because they don't care about their health, they feed them that because that is what is normal for them, that is what many of them grew up with.

At this point it isn't just about what a kid wants. It's about what the parent wants. You don't think all those kids in the back seat with the happy meals are the only ones eating there, right?

PJ

[Malibu03]

I never ate fast food as a child and still ended up chubby. Just my 2 cents worth.

[chknwing]

I respectfully disagree. In the long run, parents have a bigger influence on their children than anything else, even if it doesn't always appear that way.

Even the best parents can not guarantee that their children will always make the right choices. All we can do is be honest with them about the world, and teach them the best we can.

We defininantly agree to disagree here; doing all that can be done in some cases is not enuff to out way the power house marketing to kids; I do believe that is some households parents hold the sway; but I am much more cynical as a whole; my interactions through friends and seeing them grow up tells me that most of them bought the ticket sold by genius marketing gurus, most regretfully and unfortuantely some of these freinds are not here to tell there stories.

[pennink]

my parents wouldn't EVER let me have junk food, pop, or fast food.

What did I do when I got out on my own? Ya, I went nuts and ate it like crazy.

damned if you do, damned if you don't

just gotta do your best.

[cartersg1]

DH believes Happy Meals are a rite of childhood passage and I remind him they came out when WE were in high school. He does believe that DD will grow up with some kind of complex if she can't wax poetically about getting Happy Meals as a child.

Before we go banning Happy Meals, take a look at the kid's menus at ANY restaurant - no matter what they call it, it's breaded chicken fingers, fries, mac and cheese, pizza, and sugary drinks. I have outright BANNED DD from getting "beige" food anymore. No more fries, nothing fried. Roadhouse - a place known for steaks - has mac and cheese WITH fries for kids!!! YUCK! Until we as parents start demanding changes, it will go on. Cheers!

[frankly]

Exactly! I'm not saying the profit justifies it. I'm saying vote with your wallet. A drop in profits gets a company's attention faster than anything else.

I agree with you in that the most effective way to hurt a company is by impacting their bottom line. But I also think it's high time we put a stop to advertising targeted at children. Children do not have the critical judgement skills required to asses advertising. Your children do not always ask you what everything means and you cannot always monitor what they see. The simplest solution is to tell companies to restrict their advertising to adults. If they want you to buy something for your children, then let them "show some backbone" and say it to you directly.

[rightnow]

In reality, you know, if people would get the freakin TV's out of the dominant position in their households, about 90% of all marketing to children would vanish.

My kid doesn't know about stuff except if friends tell her, or she sees it in the store, or she runs into it online. We haven't had a TV in years. We get news, weather, etc. online. We have VCR and DVD for movies, we have video game consoles. But not TV.

As a result, she's unusually impatient with commercials. She didn't get bred to have a 3 minute attention span thanks to time in front of TV, and when we watch something that has a commercial (on video) or she hears a commercial on a restaurant music track that is local radio, she thinks it's stupid, why would anybody want to spend their time listening to that stuff.

We live about 500 yards from McDonalds, and within 3 blocks of about 15 other food places, so it ain't like they're a secret from her though LOL, and we used to live at those places instead of cooking.

But my point is that the dominant form of media marketing to children is TELEVISION.

Culture-wide, parents choose that.

Most parents work a job, come home, they're exhausted, there's still dinner, cleaning up, errands, chores, whatever, and bedtime. My friends' kids, all of them, spend vastly more time with the TV than their parents, because their parents work for a living and the kid has hours when they are still at work, and there is usually some time in the evening the parents want a little TV so the kid has that too. Plus the little kids tend to live in front of the TV and they are so demanding time/attention-wise that lots of parents are grateful for the TV getting the toddler off their back for awhile, I certainly was back then.

Maybe the issue isn't just McDonald's advertising, or that parents allow that food, but that parents allow that advertising. Sure, they'd see little things elsewhere, but only an infintesimal fraction of what they see on TV.

PJ

[neverwhere]

Owned.

Hmmm. No, that's not "owning" anything. The cigarrette line is an inflammatory statement at best. My mother coughs blood due to her emphysema. Please dont tell me feeding your child 4 nuggets once a month is the same thing. Don't even go there.

Trying heroin once might not hurt you. But it also might addict you or kill you. Lets not be comparing apples and oranges here.

Let's not even get into the issue of paying for healthcare, because there are a LOT of different causes of these diseases that need to be treated. Lets not go blaming the "fat" people.

Yes, RightNow, unfortunately everyone misses the point. As I already stated, there are many different issues being debated at once. Sorry for those that think I have "no experience" and are only debating one thing. Silly me, I thought we've moved past the regulating choices thing.

I fully understand that I am not a five year old, thanks. My point is that my daddy took on the "burden" of telling me NO. And teaching me not to be a mindless consumerist sheep. Which is why today I dont fall into marketing ploys so much. I assume you teach your daughter these things too. So you don't have to worry.

Yes, Mcdonalds is mostly crap food. But why are you all acting like they are Nazi's for advertising food to children? Ronald Mcdonald has been around for how long?

Forget it. The zealots are out in full swing.

[rightnow]

I wasn't really talking to you personally, sorry if it got interpreted that way. Sometimes the internet is a limited medium of communication. :-)

PJ

[deb34]

ban the happy meals and the kids will eat the Big Macs, large fries and huge soda's that their parents eat... talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

at least if the kiddies are eating mcnuggets and small fries, and a small soda, their is some semblance of portion control...with the ban, that goes completely out the window.

[neverwhere]

I wasn't really talking to you personally, sorry if it got interpreted that way. Sometimes the internet is a limited medium of communication. :-)

PJ

I know you werent. I was agreeing with you about missing the point. I missed some points myself. I was debating one thing initially, then it morphed into something else ;)

AGAIN, let me just say, I'm not saying Mcdonalds SHOULD market to children. I am simply saying the clown needs to stop being blamed for it all, and that the liverpool gesture is futile. (PS and that governments shouldnt tell people what is healthy or not. :lol: )

Carry on with your regularly scheduled thread ;)

[neverwhere]

ban the happy meals and the kids will eat the Big Macs, large fries and huge soda's that their parents eat... talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

at least if the kiddies are eating mcnuggets and small fries, and a small soda, their is some semblance of portion control...with the ban, that goes completely out the window.

Yes. I also need to reread the article. Are they banning all McD's advertisements, or just not offering happy meals?

[Daisymaiz]

I agree with you in that the most effective way to hurt a company is by impacting their bottom line. But I also think it's high time we put a stop to advertising targeted at children. Children do not have the critical judgement skills required to asses advertising. Your children do not always ask you what everything means and you cannot always monitor what they see. The simplest solution is to tell companies to restrict their advertising to adults. If they want you to buy something for your children, then let them "show some backbone" and say it to you directly.
I can't control what they do, nor do I want to. I can only control what I do.

[ReginaW]

But if the majority decides to take a company to task for using deplorable marketing practices which ultimately harm children, good for them. Why would any of us want to take the side of a clown faced corporation over the health of our children.

It isn't a matter of taking sides with the clown, but rather an issue of just how much government intervention/regulation we are willing to accept in our lives. Personally, I'd much rather have the option to turn off the TV, drive past McD's instead of stopping, and any number of other things than have the government regulate what can and can't be served by a restaurant, toys as incentive included.

Now, that said, I do not have much of a problem with regulations that restrict advertising to segments of the population, like children....although the whole idea that we have to "protect" kids from the big-bad corporations out there does smack of being ridiculous IMO when it comes to food and eating out....because ultimately, as a parent, I make the decision as to where we will and will not eat - not a marketer or advertiser.

[pennink]

just wondering... doesn't the US have guidelines for advertising to children?

here are the Canadian regs.
http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/codeInterpretationGuidelines.asp

[ReginaW]

Before we go banning Happy Meals, take a look at the kid's menus at ANY restaurant - no matter what they call it, it's breaded chicken fingers, fries, mac and cheese, pizza, and sugary drinks. I have outright BANNED DD from getting "beige" food anymore. No more fries, nothing fried. Roadhouse - a place known for steaks - has mac and cheese WITH fries for kids!!! YUCK! Until we as parents start demanding changes, it will go on. Cheers!

Exactly!

Good grief, I wrote a blog post about that ages ago.....I still refuse to order anything off the kids' menus for DS.....he can have something from the adult menu (I'll plate it for him and take the rest in a doggy-bag when it gets to the table) or make him a plate from what we're eating. It never ceases to amaze me - the crap they have on kids' menus - and restaurants want you to think they're doing you a favor with the price? Puh-leez!

A couple of weeks ago, DH, DS and me went out to lunch at a local Italian restaurant....kids menu featured a half-dozen pasta options.....all carbs! When I told the waitress DS would have the garden salad topped with grilled chicken breast she asked "are you sure he'll eat that?" I wanted to smack her - for saying it like she did in front of him! UGH Yes, he ate all the chicken, the tomatoes and cucumbers, and the cheese that was on top....just a few bites of the lettuce.....and the waitress was "amazed" (her words) when she was clearing our table when we were done.

[TheCaveman]

Let's not even get into the issue of paying for healthcare, because there are a LOT of different causes of these diseases that need to be treated. Lets not go blaming the "fat" people.


We're not blaming the fat people; we're blaming McDonalds.

What you might not realize is that the city council (or whatever) of Liverpool considers policy like this because of MONEY. The cost of care for people who make unhealthy choices is breaking Liverpool and the rest of the country, if the news and government reports are to be believed. In their very limited ability to improve the health of their citizens and of their public coffers, they place the onus on the one benefiting from public money.

There are a lot of different causes of these diseases that need to be treated, and we'll presume that Liverpool aims to pursue remedies to those causes as well. Is there a comprehensive regulatory package being considered in Liverpool encompassing solutions to all those different causes? Or is the Happy Meal Bill the only regulation that made the papers?

ban the happy meals and the kids will eat the Big Macs, large fries and huge soda's that their parents eat... talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

Let's give McDonald's some credit. Let's guess that they have figured out that Happy Meals make people buy more food, not less. Probably, the whole reason the promotion has lasted 30 years is that they are making more money with it than without it. We could just as easily envision that if there were no Happy Meals, that parents would just feed their kids part of their own order.

Do we know for sure if a Happy Meal costs less than the sum of its ala carte items?

[pennink]

that's nuts about the waitress Regina, but totally true.

I had a project in which I had kids prepare salads and try out their favourites. Hands down the kids (aged 4 to 14) loved the Cobb. their parents were shocked the kids ate the salads and asked for more!

[frankly]

I can't control what they do, nor do I want to. I can only control what I do.

But we control what they do, we have many standards and regulations keeping corporations and their advertising in check. The only thing that stopped them from marketing cigarettes as healthy and cool was the social will and legislation to control them.

[rightnow]

I doubt people would be pulling apart hamburgers and fries orders. They'd just be ordering something off the regular menu for the kid. There is a dollar menu. You can get a hamburger, cheeseburger, double cheeseburger, chicken burger, small fries, small soda, ice cream, and a few other things (each $1) off that menu. There is no serious hardship in not having a happy meal. It is little more than cute convenient packaging. I don't think not having it would make any real difference. If they put that into law, and even the slightest difference shows up, I bet it would be a result of forcing parents to remember, before they turned in that drive-through, that the gov't thought junk food was bad enough for kids to kill that item off, which might make them reconsider.

And eat as-bad or worse junk food at home instead.

PJ

[LessLiz]

In reality, you know, if people would get the freakin TV's out of the dominant position in their households, about 90% of all marketing to children would vanish.
From 2003 (http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia102803nr.cfm)
A third of all 0-6 year-olds (36%) have a TV in their bedroom, more than one in four (27%) have a VCR or DVD, one in ten have a video game player, and 7% have a computer. Thirty percent of 0-3 year-olds have a TV in their room, and 43% of 4-6 year-olds do.

Many children are growing up in homes where the TV is an ever-present companion: two-thirds (65%) live in homes where the TV is left on at least half the time or more, even if no one is watching, and one-third (36%) live in homes where the TV is on “always” or “most of the time” (the latter group are considered “heavy” TV households.)

Approximate number (http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html) of studies examining TV's effects on children: 4,000
Number of minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 3.5
Number of minutes per week that the average child watches television: 1,680
Percentage of day care centers that use TV during a typical day: 70
Percentage of parents who would like to limit their children's TV watching: 73
Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked to choose between watching TV and spending time with their fathers, preferred television: 54
Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900 hours
Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1500

PJ hit the nail on the head. Further, if the TV wasn't on for kids to watch then it wouldn't matter whether kid-centric marketing continued.

[rightnow]

I might add that a walk through the grocery freezer section might be educational. Basically, everything that McDonald's serves, and tons of stuff they don't but that is equivalent or worse, is in the frozen section, and you can just nuke it. The sales on this stuff is staggering.

I guess the reality is that the problem is so pervasive, and yet the medical system is still so badly affected by medical school and medical facilities being funded by food/chem corporations, that it seems rather unlikely that anything large scale can be done that would seriously improve the situation.

I think small-scale it could be, but of course, only with medical advice that isn't harmful which most the current schtick is. And the world isn't very small-scale anymore.

PJ

[rightnow]

From 2003 (http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia102803nr.cfm)

I bet the numbers are way higher now, too.

PJ

[joedoro]

Read again. I didn't say to raise grain prices - I said to remove subsidies that artificially lower them. Yes, I'm aware that grains sit at the bottom of our protein food chain, and that removing subsidies may increase prices on meat. That's okay from a number of perspectives, since the subsidies also make import of less expensive alternatives impossible. There are other excellent reasons to remove grain (and sugar) subsidies, but the fact that we are subsidizing the very thing that makes our society obese seems counterproductive, even negligent to me.

Remove the subsidies and the price of grain goes up. No way around it. Here in Iowa, what a farmer gets per bushel of corn raised is less than what it costs for him to grow it. So no subsidy, no crop, unless the price goes up. And as the price of corn goes up then the

As for grain being at the bottom of the proetein chain, it is at the top but in the form of animal protein. Nearly every animal we consume is dependent upon cheap corn for food. And raise the price of that and the cost of the end product will go up and carbs will still be cheaper. Remember less than 3% of the beef consumed in this country comes from grass fed beef.

[frankly]

Yes, Mcdonalds is mostly crap food. But why are you all acting like they are Nazi's for advertising food to children? Ronald Mcdonald has been around for how long?

Forget it. The zealots are out in full swing.


We are all "acting like Nazis"** - thanks for proving Godwin's law within 65 posts.

Anyway, Ronald himself was invented in 1963(ish) as part of a TV advertising campaign. ( source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_McDonald's) )

he looked like this:

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/6886/ronaldmcdonaldxz5.jpg


The first Happy Meal was sold in 1979. (more information about the happy meal here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Meal) )



**speaking of which ;)

http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/thumbnails/Ein_Volk_Ein_Ronald_by_Latu.jpg

[TheCaveman]

New plan to cut childhood obesity

Fast food restaurants which give away toys with children's meals could be banned from using such marketing ploys in Liverpool.
The move, suggested by one of the city council's scrutiny committees, is part of a series of initiatives to help tackle childhood obesity in Liverpool.

Restaurants like McDonalds, which offer free toys with their children's meals, could suffer if a by-law is introduced.

A McDonald's spokeswoman said the firm followed advertising codes of practice.

She added that McDonald's strongly rejected any claims that it marketed so-called 'junk food' to children.

Liverpool City Council's Childhood Obesity Scrutiny Committee is behind the idea to implement a city-wide ban on fast food outlets offering free toys with children's meals.

'Stringent principles'

The idea, which is still in its very early stages, was inspired by a similar scheme in Germany where the promotion of fast food outlets using free toys was banned.

A spokesman for Liverpool City Council said: "We have a number of strategies running across the city to help reduce childhood obesity and are looking to see whether it is possible to prevent fast food restaurants from directly appealing to children through free toy offers."

A spokeswoman for McDonald's said: "McDonald's is not able to respond directly to the proposals discussed by Liverpool City Council's Childhood Obesity Scrutiny Group, as there is little detail to the proposal at present.

"McDonald's is a responsible advertiser. We adhere to all current Codes of Practice and have our own equally stringent principles for marketing, which in many cases exceed current regulations and guidelines."

She added that the average Happy Meal was 40% lower in salt, 28% lower in sugar and 21% lower in saturated fat than it was five years ago.

She said the firm had put animated characters such as Shrek, Scooby Doo and bees from Bee Movie on a variety of food and drink items including fruit bags, carrot sticks and milk.

The scrutiny committee is to meet next month where it will decide whether to make a recommendation to the council.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7263106.stm

[frankly]

This story says it all... (http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/08/07/mcdonalds-advertising.html)

The gist of it:

Any food packaged by McDonald's tastes better to most preschoolers, says a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising can trick the taste buds of young children.

Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to kids if it was wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches. The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald's foods in name-brand or unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost the taste test.

Ahhh, so easy to brainwash the young...

http://www.falloutcentral.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/baby-ronald.jpg

[joedoro]

It is negligent, borderline criminal IMO. There are no subsidies for broccoli, or pastured animals for that matter. All those millions of acres of corn (that used to be, and should be prairie) could be better utilized for grazing livestock. So many problems could be solved with our free sunlight.

People have been so brainwashed by the food industry that they don't even know what food is anymore. Couple that with nefarious (follow the money) public health recommendations and we're screwed.
I am pro freedom, pro capitalist, pro America- but if people are to be given a choice they should at least know the truth before they make their decision. We need to be educating our people on the right foods, not legislating a bunch of bans on the (supposedly) wrong foods.

Ask any rancher and they will tell you that if Americans want grass fed beef than they will surely provide it - but 3 years to bring a cow to market for grass fed vs. 150 days for grain fed is going to result in a much more expensive product. And americans want only things that are cheap. I personally eat grass fed beef and pay $5-6 a lb for ground beef and 8 a lb for round tip roasts. Steaks will go for 8-14 a lb. And I doubt many people are willing to pay those prices.

As for education, good luck when people who read USA Today and watch TV news consider themselves informed. Hell, look at college today, Introductory Logic is no longer a required course . And forget about science.

[ReginaW]

Fast food restaurants which give away toys with children's meals could be banned from using such marketing ploys in Liverpool.
The move, suggested by one of the city council's scrutiny committees, is part of a series of initiatives to help tackle childhood obesity in Liverpool.


Are they also going to legislate away cold cereal sold as part of a nutritionally complete breakfast because it too has toys in it? Or is that OK because it's grain?

[2bflawless]

I agree. Please. You can't legislate everything.
I am with you, Elleh. You can not legislate everything. You should have freedom to chose what to eat. It's not McDonald's fault people are obese. People we make our own choices. This is ridiculous...what's next? What if they decided low carb was wrong and all the wonderful LC products were banned and books pulled from shelves?

[ReginaW]

Ask any rancher and they will tell you that if Americans want grass fed beef than they will surely provide it - but 3 years to bring a cow to market for grass fed vs. 150 days for grain fed is going to result in a much more expensive product. And americans want only things that are cheap. I personally eat grass fed beef and pay $5-6 a lb for ground beef and 8 a lb for round tip roasts. Steaks will go for 8-14 a lb. And I doubt many people are willing to pay those prices.


Find yourself a local farmer and order in bulk (split quarter or half) -- we do that and pay $3.85 a pound cut weight which includes everything from ground beef to filet mignon to everything in between and soup bones too! (grass-fed, 100% pastured, organic too)

[KarenJ]

Find yourself a local farmer and order in bulk (split quarter or half) -- we do that and pay $3.85 a pound cut weight which includes everything from ground beef to filet mignon to everything in between and soup bones too! (grass-fed, 100% pastured, organic too)


Absolutely! Local is the way to go. My farmer is 45 minutes away, raises 12 heads per 12-18 mo, and charges me around .85 cents/pound before processing. I just picked up my half last Thurs and split it with my friend.

The cows don't get that big in 12- 18 mo, My cow was 1160 lbs at slaughter.

It really is not that expensive. Even after the processing fees I ended up with 30 pounds ground beef, all kinds of steaks, the fat from around the kidneys, toungue, liver, soup bones, roasts... ribs... what am I forgetting?
I paid 246.50, or 3.10/lb.

Off topic, but I have to say that it's been a great experience. The farmer is truly excited and proud of his animals. I'll never go back to feedlot.

[neverwhere]

Read again, Frankly. I did not say YOU or anyone else HERE was acting like Nazis.

[frankly]

Read again, Frankly. I did not say YOU or anyone else HERE was acting like Nazis.


But why are you all acting like they are Nazi's for advertising food to children?

Doh! You got me there, but it's still a variant of Godwin's law, saying that we are acting like they are Nazis... I think.

Oh well, thank you for not calling us Nazis, sorry for the misquote.

[neverwhere]

Doh! You got me there, but it's still a variant of Godwin's law, saying that we are acting like they are Nazis... I think.

Oh well, thank you for not calling us Nazis, sorry for the misquote.

It's ok :)

We might disagree on some things, but I dont bear any ill will against you guys. I wouldnt call you such a bad name. :rheart:

[kyrasdad]

The theme we see is, "it won't change anything, so don't do it." Or that somehow, by regulating advertising aimed at children, you somehow "limit" people's choices. Neither is addressing the actual argument. then there is the "parents need to grow a spine" school of thought, that says we should allow all marketing of any kind to children because it's up to parents to limit the damage.

Have I missed any of these arguments?

Personal responsibility: parents, raise your kids.
Corporate responsibility: parents, raise your kids.

Oddly different standards. Those seem to be the lines of thought, such as it is.

[Calianna]

This is probably neither here nor there, but I recall as my kids got too big for happy meals, the burger, fries and small drink could be bought at a "special price" by ordering an "All American meal". Now that might not be what they'd call it in Liverpool ;)... but really, it's the exact same meal, and even though they don't even advertise the All American Meal, it's the exact same food in that's in the happy meal.

[joedoro]

Find yourself a local farmer and order in bulk (split quarter or half) -- we do that and pay $3.85 a pound cut weight which includes everything from ground beef to filet mignon to everything in between and soup bones too! (grass-fed, 100% pastured, organic too)

That's the problem - if when I lived in New York City someone suggested that we buy half a cow, people would have thought they were nuts. Where would we put it? Even here in Des Moines, the hassel of finding someone to share a cow, then storing it, and with our power constantly going out due to spring and summer storms, and this year the ice storms, there's now way I could keep alot of food in a freezer here, And then trying to figure out when it would be available, make it not worth the effort. So we pay more the convenience. Which is my point. Getting grass fed beef in a similar manner that we get grain fed beef is going to be quite expensive and I can't see americans doing it.

[Felicie]

Actually, I think legislation could make a difference, but not legislation of the kind people bannter about -- closing McDonald's that are in proximity to schools and the like. That's useless.

Legislation that I could see as useful:


Revamp farm subsidies that artificially reduce the price of grains. The entire subsidies mess is one of the primary root causes in my opinion.
Force changes in dietary recommendations that clearly are not working.
Require better labeling of nutritional content in stores and restaurants
Remove all nutritional based marketing. Give us clear, concise, accurate nurtitional values, but don't allow claims of low-carb, low-fat, lite, whole-grain, organic or whatever. It's all gone. Right now, you can put a 'healthy' sheen on Fruit Loops by claiming they are trans fat free, organic and whole grain. Ridiculous. No way to fix that system - just junk it.
Treat sugar, when marketed to children, the same as you treat tobacco. No cartoon characters. No television commercials. Just more or less disallow food marketing aimed at anyone younger than 18.
Pay for physical education in schools. Require and pay for nutritional information. (I know, right now they'd teach the wrong lessons, but point 2 would hopefully help with that. At the very least, both viewpoints could be required).

Now, I wouldn't expect most of these to ever happen. Big Food is very happy with the current situation.

Oh, boy. Just stumbled upon this post. Sorry for chiming in so late. This is really wise, in my opinion. I couldn't agree more with what you said.

[daisyboo]

When my son was 8 he used to go out with the little boy round the corner who is the same age as him. They often ended up at macdonalds (with his mum), my son ate a chicken sandwich value meal (he NEVER orders anything different!) and his 8yr old friend ordered TWO extra value deluxe cheeseburger meals. Alex would come home and go off to karate/swimming/cycling or somesuch, his friend would come home and get on his playstation. I don't think the toys had anything to do with either of their choices however Alex knew fine well i'd have ripped into him if he'd ordered TWO meals!