Lawsuit in San Francisco against McD happy meals

[Paradox74]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/san-francisco-s-ban-happy-meals-won-t-af

Ah yes. San Francisco at its finest. Only they were the ones who saw the dangers of cell phone radiation and acted immediately to defend their people.

If children are buying the happy meals just for the toys, then why not sell them separately instead of going through some screwball lawsuit?

Any thoughts on this lawsuit and the organization, the center for science in the public interest, that is behind it?

 

[DallasDad]

Every MCD's where I've asked, the happy meal toys were indeed available separately. We tend to eat MCD's during long road trips, because it's guaranteed to be around somewhere close and we can get back on the road quickly (sometimes just using the drive-up window).

My kids are too old for the Happy Meals, but they aren't too old for the toys. So now I ask. Sometimes the store just gives them away, other times they want to charge a buck.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Thanks Big Brother

 

[Puppycow]

How 'bout we just send fat people to fat camps and don't let them leave until they lose the weight?

 

[Beerina]

“It’s a lay-down that children are deceived by this type of marketing because it’s not a theory but a scientific fact that young kids – 6, 4, even as high as 8 – do not understand advertising. They don’t know it’s advertising, their shields are not up and they just think it is a good message telling them to eat junk food. They are deceived,” he said.

"First, kill all the lawyers." They need to die, screaming like pigs in Hell, while we laugh, watching on YouTube.

 

[Emet]

“McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children,” said Stephen Gardner, litigation director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a non-profit health research and advocacy group based out of Washington, DC. In June, CSPI threatened to sue McDonald’s if they didn’t stop using toys to woo children. “McDonald’s use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children’s developmental immaturity – all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health. It’s a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/1104/Happy-Meal-ban-No-toys-for-you

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Any thoughts on this lawsuit and the organization, the center for science in the public interest, that is behind it?

I prefer to refer to this organization by a more accurate and honest term—“The Center for junk Science of no Possible Interest”.

 

[SatanicSheep]

Under the new rules, toys could only be given away to children if the meals have fewer than 600 calories, contain fruits and vegetables, and include beverages without excessive fat or sugar.

Isn't milk and apples or carrots already an option in Happy Meals? So you only get the toy if you choose the less appealing (to any kid I know) option? That seems like way more of a manipulative head **** that will give kids wierd ideas about food than simply just giving everybody a toy.

Do not incompletely mask swear words. Let the autocensor do its job.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Arthwollipot

 

[Travis]

When did we decide to make it illegal to not be a whiny nutrition-fascist?

Seriously.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/13-center-for-science-in-the-public-interest

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, argues that CSPI’s “obsession” with a low-fat diet reflects “a paternalistic idea that the public is not smart enough to distinguish between types of fat.” Food critic Robert Shoffner puts it more directly when he describes CSPI’s approach this way: “People are children and have to be protected by Big Brother or Big Nanny from the awful free-market predators ... That’s what drives these people—a desire for control of other people’s lives.”

 

[uk_dave]

Well. just so long as obesity isn't a problem in the US......

 

[SezMe]

From GrouchoMarxist's quote:

“a paternalistic idea that the public is not smart enough to distinguish between types of fat.”

Why is that paternalistic? And I'll bet it is 100% true.

 

[fuelair]

The problem is, to me, most people wish to eat what tastes best to them OR what they can afford that tastes best to them (the two are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they necessarily the same). I think (especially in the last two-three years) that McDonald's food has gone way downhill - as recently as 5-6 years ago I could happily eat a regular McDonald's hamburger, cheeseburger or chicken sandwich, but in the last three years they have tasted much less edible. Not just them either - the equivalents at Hardee's and Burger King seem to have really dropped in quality/taste over the same period. I would, logically, have asumed it was me except no such changes have occured in my perception of Olive Garden food, Kobe food, Red Lobster food, or local higher end restaurant food, or any of the Chinese restaurants my wife and I frequent - and my grilled hamburgers (Big Green Egg) still taste great to me!

 

[SezMe]

fuelair, could it be that Micky D (and others) is responding to food safety regulations that require hamburger meat (for example) be brought to a certain temperature to insure that all the "bugs" in it are killed? That temperature makes the burgers dry and tasteless.

 

[brenn]

"First, kill all the lawyers." They need to die, screaming like pigs in Hell, while we laugh, watching on YouTube.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest filed the suit and I'm guessing they aren't lawyers. While I'm sure they hired a lawyer to do the technical work, unless he's also a CSPI member, it wasn't his idea to sue. Not sure why you'd blame the lawyer and not the people who sued them. It's like blaming the guy driving the concrete truck because your neighbor ran a driveway across your yard.

This lawsuit, of course, is nuts. But I blame the nutty plaintiffs.

 

[lionking]

The sad thing is that this will set a precedent for publicity seeking lawyers worldwide.

 

[The Fool]

They must use some form of mind control. My children are under their power. I've cut up a lot of the toys but can find no mind control device. I think they must lace the drinks.

 

[sgtbaker]

Children who are young enough to want the toys are not buying happy meals. They can advertise bags of gold with their happy meals, it's not going to change that fact that it's the parent who say, "yes," or, "no," when the kiddies are begging to go to McD's.

 

[BenBurch]

What a stupid lawsuit. I hate prohibitionists.

 

[Darat]

Children who are young enough to want the toys are not buying happy meals. They can advertise bags of gold with their happy meals, it's not going to change that fact that it's the parent who say, "yes," or, "no," when the kiddies are begging to go to McD's.

Hang on a moment - are you saying that parents have a responsibility in all of this? That a parent can say "no"?

That's a radical position to take.