Fast-food industry is quietly defeating Happy Meal bans

Fast-food industry is quietly defeating Happy Meal bans

Working under the radar, restaurant lobbyists have persuaded state lawmakers in Florida and Arizona to ban local governments from outlawing giveaways of toys with high-calorie children's meals. A proposed ban in Nebraska died before its first hearing.

The restaurant industry is quietly — and successfully — fighting back against the enactment of so-called Happy Meal bans, which forbid restaurants like McDonald's to hand out toys with children's meals that are high in calories.

Moving under the radar so stealthily that in some cases local politicians and anti-obesity activists missed it entirely, lobbyists in Florida and Arizona backed successful efforts to take away the power to enact such bans from cities and counties. In Nebraska, a proposed statewide Happy Meal ban died in February, even before its first legislative committee hearing.

"Somebody was working the committee," said Nebraska state Sen. Bill Avery, who sponsored the proposed toy ban. "The bill was killed and indefinitely postponed without discussion."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-happy-meal-backlash-20110518,0,7236630.story

"baaaahhhh" - American Sheeple

It's like using cartoon characters to advertise cigarettes.

Tell your children "NO." Or don't bring them to McDonald's in the first place. This isn't an epic battle, it's a freakin' lunch choice. I've yet to meet a six year old I couldn't take.

.

society can do to encourage that for parents is far better than encouraging oppositional relationships.

Personally, my husband and I took drastic steps (according to many) to create a life where we were rarely in a position to say no to our daughter. We preferred to give her a life full of yes! yes! yes!

WHile I love my adult life, it is FAR from "yes! yes! yes!" all the time. I prefer to think of my child as a future adult and not some creation that is simply a pleasure machine.

Our job is to raise kids, not make ourselves feel good about how progressive we are as parents.

My daughter is an adult now and she takes enormous pleasure from life. In most ways, I think she lives a magical life. When we were raising her, many people told my husband and I that we should write a child-raising book.

I don't want my children to think there are no choices they will have to make (i.e. everything is positioned such it is always a "yes" answer). Rather, I will take the chance to educate them on the decisions being made, so that when they face a situation, they will choose the best answer.

educating them on the choices that they will face.

And, if that is the case, you are arguing semantics. You are doing essentially the same thing I am: explaining you made the choice that you did.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/A8DA9492B9104CFBAF6A3E53A4086D71/spoiled-beauty-queen.aspx


Where does one draw the line between "temptation" and just saying no...

understand?

this is about proper parenting, and not allowing your child to dictate the terms of the relationship...

"Personally, my husband and I took drastic steps (according to many) to create a life where we were rarely in a position to say no to our daughter. We preferred to give her a life full of yes! yes! yes!".

Hopefully... your child (when the time comes to have kids of her own), will have better understanding than you do.

right to target their children and meddle with that relationship.

"this is about proper parenting, and not allowing your child to dictate the terms of the relationship..."

I imagine that were yours the only relevant point, lobbyists wouldn't be getting paid this much to affect change in laws, or even mentioned in the OP... :shrug:

to not give in to it. my kids don't ask for as much as they used to since we dropped the satelite and went to internet streaming and off air. but when they would ask me for something they HAD TO HAVE i would explain to them about how people have a job where they make stories up about things to make them sound like they are greater than they are. look at those kids playing with that toy. they look so happy!! but if you get that it will not be like that. chances are in five minutes the toy will be sitting in the corner. because they are just trying to sell you a toy. they lie. it's all pretend. don't let them tell you what you want.

Advertising is not appropriate for children. There is no reason why a parent cannot explain the brainwashing techniques of advertising without exposing them to advertising that is directed at them. Certainly I was able to teach my daughter how babies are conceived without her actually having to watch a couple having sex.

kids are going to see advertising. it is not the same as sex. but you keep peddling that.

and reality (from ages from 0-5) is not age appropriate. I think you understood my point but chose to sensationalize it.

But NOOOOOOOOOOO! I shouldn't have to explain stuff to my kids! I shouldn't have to take the time to instill my values in them! Raising kids should be EASY! I don't want to have to actually work at it!

.

I have a 7 month old, and she won't be eating much fast food in her life. I don't eat it, and it's not something that I think I'll expose her to much. So why they would have to get rid of happy meals for any parent to make their life easier? Who cares? You either go to McDs or you don't. If you do, a Happy Meal is no better or worse than anything else you'll get there.

That's the point, isn't it? A Happy Meal is just the same crappy food packaged with a toy. No different than anything else on the McD's menu. So what's the fuss? If you're taking your kid to McDonald's in the first place, you have no right to bitch about the toy they put in your kid's dinner. Just don't take your kids to McDonald's.

:shrug:

Education helps. Telling your kids WHY McDonald's food is bad helps. Teaching them healthy choices helps. When our boys were little, we always left a bowl of fruit on the table. They were free to eat all they wanted. We took them to McDonald's on occasion, but no Happy Meals. They dug it for the playscape, not the crappy toy. To this day, neither of our sons, both grown now, like french fries. Just not into them. I life of "Yes Yes Yes!" isn't necessarily a good thing. As a parent, it is up to you to say NO! every now and then. Forcibly if necessary. Kids need to learn that life isn't "Yes Yes Yes!"

.

organizing family life to set up the conditions to say YES.

"YES, you do...but we're going to the Broccoli Buffet tonight."

"Why do we always have to eat that crap? Everyone else gets Happy Meals!"

"YES, they do...but their parents don't love them. They'll all have cancer and diabetes by the time they're 30."

"Jesus...do you guys ever have any fun?"

"YES! On Thursday when there is nothing on television. Or on nights when you're on a sleepover at Kimmie's house."

:hi:

.

... to make a place where that can happen right?

No is good for kids and unless you think she is going to live with you until you pass on you might want to slip a few in there.

that cigarettes aren't sold to children. Lead removal has been a good thing. Better to have a lead free home than to have to constantly watch your children and castigate them when they start chewing on the paint chips.

What happens when she enters the real world?

incredible person I know.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Self Delete

"My 5 year old doesn't like this or that." NO, be the parent dammitt!

to spit directly in our faces and bombard our kids from every direction with messages that counter every decision we try to make.

Hell we have MC'Ds starting to demand that they have a right to try and move into our schools to sell their crap.

We, as parents, also have the right to be involved in our kids' lives, and show up at school board meetings, and boycott, and protest. Any entity, be it a corporation or an individual, will do what it needs to do to advance its own standing. If you don't, you're a slacker...Darwinism. So we shouldn't be protesting McDonalds' desire to expands their market...we should be protesting the entire system that allows them to have equal say. They have billions of dollars to spend to squelch debate. We only have debate..and we need to use it. Or sit down, shut up and let them have their way with us.

.

There is also a law against advertising pornography to children. Laws. There is no law against advertising food to children. McDonald's doesn't sell anything harmful...unless you eat their product every day. In that case, it is YOUR problem, not McDonald's. You're stupid. And you're harming your children. At what point does it become a PARENTING issue, and you stop blaming McDonald's for tempting you to be bad?

.

McDonald's predatory advertising. Advertising that interferes and undermines the parent/child relationship. Just like parents banded together to stop cigarette companies from their predatory advertising.

By the way, a few months ago, I did quite a bit of research and I couldn't find any laws barring pornographers from advertising to children.

I imagine were it simply a "freakin' lunch choice", the amount of cash invested by lobbyists wouldn't be quite so much.

I imagine that should we choose to look further than our own personal interests, we often see that a thing may be more than simply the obvious.

However, I do understand that this type of thread is a wonderful platform for individuals to illustrate their dominion over children. :shrug:

than cooperative?

Someone said it was unfair of the company to place the parents in a position to have to say "no"

It was at that point I knew for certain that their children were utterly and completely screwed for the rest of their lives.

parental responsibility...

While I personally think the whole "Happy Meal" concept is terrible, I believe it is ultimately up to the parents. If we, as a society, don't do a good job of educating people about the adverse health effects of these McMeals, we can't be upset that parents -- especially those on a limited budget -- will opt for a $3 bag of crap with a toy instead of feeding their children properly. Face it, McDonald's is cheap. I don't eat there, but I can see why people do. Their "dollar menu" gets you a quick hot lunch. Every retail business offers some sort of incentive, from loyalty cards to coupons, etc. McDonald's is in the retail food business. The Happy Meal gets people in to buy their product. It's not as if they're putting a gun to anyone's head. If you're stupid enough to fall for the gimmick, well then...uh, you're stupid enough to take your kids to McDonald's. Let's worry about important things.

.

Parents can just tell the kid 'no'.

Other fast food outlets offer much less healthy food, take a look at arby's fries and once you do you will never eat them again. Everything at Carls Jr is total high calorie, high fat crap, their signature green burrito meal has 1480 calories, 56 grams of fat and 4660 mg of sodium. The worst offenders though are the cheap chains like applebees, outback, chili's etc but the media always seems to want to focus on McDonald's go figure.

a treat? Moderation is the key here. I wouldn't want a child to have a happy meal ever day, but as a treat once or twice a month, what's the problem? If a child has basically a healthy diet, what's the problem in splurging now and then?

to influence children (and, in turn, create conditions that set up an oppositional relationship with their parents). Children from age 0-5 do not have the capacity to distinguish between the fantasy of advertising and reality. Most child development professionals agree that there should be no advertising directed towards children younger than 8.

You don't have to say "bullshit," of course. But that is the role of a parent, to educate their children. Ironically, my job is advertising (currently, political advertising). I know bullshit when I see it. But I never had a problem pointing out to my kids when they were being hoodwinked. I know the trick we pull. I educated my kids to be aware of them, and to watch out for them. Still, it didn't stop them from loving Power Rangers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Some forces are too strong for logic and education in the mind of a 6-year-old boy.

not going to get very far with a concept they can not grasp.

My sons had no problem grasping the concept of advertising. It isn't that tough...it only took one play session with a TMNT. They realized quickly that the toy didn't move and do all the stuff that it did in the commercial, and I was able to use that as a lesson. Metaphysics? About the only think I could explain to them is that there is no hyphen in "metaphysics."

.

he may even cry and make a fuss.

Best to just give him everything he wants then drug him when he fidgets.

. . . to distinguish between the fantasy of advertising and reality"

That's why we don't give them money.

That's why they're pretty much controlled by their parents.

And yet, we are comfortable regulating advertising to children for both.

Cigarettes are addictive.

What else ya got?

Get off it, Luminous. You are sounding like one of those paranoids who goes out looking for stuff to be paranoid about.

.

I don't know you personally. I believe I am stating my case just as you believe you are stating yours. There is no "personal" about it. I just totally disagree with your position. Deal.

It's part of being a parent. If you allow your child free reign, then they control you instead of the other way around.

Children will grow up and encounter "no" many, many more times in their adult lives. Shielding them from that at such an early age is extremely counterproductive.

the capacity to purchase anything without their parent's contributing to the purchase. Problem solved.

Americans have been like that since the first puritans landed here

towards children.

McDonalds is not some evil empire trying to turn our country obese - they are a business

If you want to change things, do like consumer activists did in the UK and lobby McD's to make their meals healthier. A UK Big Mac has more protein and fiber than the American ones.

attribute to me positions that I have never expressed.

Again, this is about predatory advertising to children. This is about curbing unfettered access to shape the desires of children, who are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, contrary to parental standards. I just looked at the Happy Meals in the UK. While there are some healthy choices, most of the choices are no less crap than what is offered in the US.

http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/food/happy-meal/happy-meal.mcdj

Nobody holds a gun to anyone's head, demanding that they go into a McDonald's.

:evilgrin:

If you sit next to me while your kid eats a happy meal, I might be annoyed but I won't be breathing second-hand McNuggets.

.

:7






:popcorn:

I don't eat a lot in one meal, and I find the kid's meal to be just the right amount.

What pisses me off is that Republicans are all about local control until localities start doing things they don't like.

A mcdonalds cheeseburger and small fries have like 500-600 total calories, I don't see how that is horrible for a kid. I eat at mcdonalds frequently and I see what parents are getting their kids to eat and it isn't happy meals....

They aren't high in calories, they provide protein, they're just not that bad. French fries are never good, but a small order every now and then ain't gonna kill you. A McD's cheeseburger, small fries and a diet soda may not be the best thing in the world, but it's far from the worst. Again, education, moderation and a little common sense go a long way.

.

They offer apple slices and caramel dip instead of fries for a happy meal. I bring my children there once in awhile. We don't eat out much (single mom, full time student) but once a month at McDonalds is affordable, and enjoyable for my kids. And yeah, they like the toys. So what? If I don't want them to have it, I just say no. I'm the parent. In fact, sometimes, when things are really tight, we share meals and I don't let them get a toy. You know what? It's easy - here practice...."No toy today everyone. We are here to eat and if I hear whining about the toy, we can go home." I normally don't ever have a problem. :shrug:

or possibly a pair of them who had the absolute final say on what they child may eat.

Of course that is complete fiction at the moment. Right now kids are issued credit cards and cars at birth and allowed to fend for themselves, choosing whether they'd prefer ice-cream or broccoli for dinner.

What a nightmarish dystopia we live in where there are none who can reign in the children!

to protect their children from predatory advertising.


What part of, "it is not about the food, it is about the advertising" do you not understand?

the parents are asking for it.

to look after their charges?

Shouldn't the children then be taken away once that admission is made?

If you want the state to raise your kid don't half-ass it.

targeting their kids against their wishes?

I don't like Depends ads. I view them against my wishe. I don't like ads for boner pills or Weight Watchers. I view them against my wishes. McDonald's sells a product, and like any other seller, McDonald's needs to advertise its product. Why do you feel they are special and need to be singled out for censure? They are just like any other business trying to make a buck.

.

and place ads in kids shows? After all they are "just making a buck", that catch all phrase that makes anything OK.

Why not in America? I have a pack of cigs from Thailand I had to buy just for the packaging...A big full-color picture of throat cancer on the front, bigger than the Marlboro logo. In America, we subsidize the tobacco companies. We subsidize the oil companies. We don't subsidize McDonald's. We don't force them to put "FRENCH FRIES WILL KILL YOU" on their packaging. Advertising is legal. Eating french fries is legal. What are you suggesting? That we expand the Nanny State and tell people they can't take their kids to McDonald's? How about better education in the first place? How about better options? How about green grocers in inner cities instead of bodegas filled with Twinkies and Tater Tots? You're seriously going to start with McDonald's? The issue is so much bigger than a Happy Meal at Mickey D's.

.

using cartoon characters?

And there has been zero, nada, nil, suggestion that people be banned from taking their children to McDonald's. The issue is and has always been, regulating advertising that targets children as the primary audience. Most of the rest of the western world does this. They do this because science based research shows that children are unable to intellectually assess the information conveyed in commercials... that they, for the most part cannot distinguish between the fantasy of advertising and reality.

before subjecting them to anything that might suggest their product is one people should buy.

That's the way it works for everything else, right?

Like you don't have to get commercials on your TV unless you sign up for them. And magazines contain exclusively pictures and articles unless you specifically request one with ads.

and, 2) the child her/himself. McDonald's is being singled out because it is easier to focus on one powerful target that weaken resources against many.

Likewise aren't some parents fine with taking their kids to McDonalds?

the fantasy of advertising and reality. Between the ages of 6-7 is the stage that leads to the "age of reason". Most child psychologists put that at 7 (and the reason why Catholics participate in the rite of 1st communion around age 7. Through observation, they concluded that that is the age when a child understands the consequences of their actions.)

Psychologists are hired by corporations and advertisers to devise strategies to manipulate consumers. To target children younger than 7-8 with such sophisticated manipulation is, in my book, child abuse.

And to address your "likewise" (and has been stated over and over and over and over again, in this thread)... no one is advocating that people be barred from taking their children to McDonald's.

The issue is predatory advertising.

or raise themselves, or work 40 hours a week to provide for their own meals.

Instead that task should be given to older, more developed people with some sort of relationship to the child in hopes they will act in the kids best interest, as a surrogate decision maker until the child has grown and matured.

How does that sound?

And it is preventing one form of service: namely giving out a cheap toy that kids like for a few days.

It's like if I said it is forbidden that restaurants have childrens menus. What, you can still go there, so it's not limiting you at all.

advertising directed towards children, I might respond.

also most people would say that when proposing a ban on something the onus is on those who prefer to see it banned to prove a need, rather than on those who do not want to see it banned prove it shouldn't be.

Quick, come up with an argument for the societal benefits of furry-porn!

Can't do it can you? BANNED

What about iPods? Surely we could live without those. BANNED

Does anyone really need crocs? I mean honestly. BANNED

Fun world you'll put us in: that which isn't forbidden is mandatory.

:eyes:

:rofl:

parental responibility is lost on some folks I guess

Oh wait, I don't think they allow junkfooderies in vt.

But they're all natural...so they're okay.

:hi:

.

and continue to poison children?

A parent telling a child no you can't eat that is different than unknowing what lead is in a product.

children in their advertising. In this way, they were able to hoodwink the general populace into accepting lead paint as a benefit not a detriment. And in this way, they were successful in keeping meaningful curbs via legislation for decades after the dangers of lead was known.

Ultimately, the dangers of lead became wildly recognized but the it's prevalence still wide-spread; the lead industry switched to blaming the victims for not only it's continued use (to stupid and ignorant) but for the right to avoid the clean up.

McDonalds is brainwashing children (who cannot distinguish between the fantasy of advertising and reality) to consume a diet that is clearly toxic to them. McDonald's has also successfully advertised to a generation of children who are now parents that McDonalds meals can be a healthy choice. I think that was asserted in this very thread.

Eating McDonald's food every day is toxic to children. And if they're doing so, it means they have horrible parents. You're so hung up on this "undermining my parent-child relationship" bullshit...just be a parent! Tell your kids what you believe, fill their little empty skulls with what YOU want them to believe. Do they want to buy motor oil or Depends or DentuCreme just because those companies advertise on television? BE A PARENT. Instill your values in your children. They will respond. They will.

nearly each and every day of that child's life, I, and many parents in the U.S. (and most in the western world) do not want corporations unregulated access to propagandize to their children.

Well that explains a lot.

Gotta clean my glasses....

When did we decide that society has no place addressing and regulating public health issues?

There is nothing wrong with a Happy Meal in moderation. I am pretty sure most would not say lead exposure has redeeming qualities in moderation.

Don't like junk food? Fine. Then don't eat it. Don't want your kids eating it? Fine. Then don't buy it for them.

This goes far beyond food issues as well. Don't like tobacco? Fine. Then don't smoke. Don't like bars that allow smoking? Fine. Then don't give them your business. Don't like Playboy Magazine? Fine. Then don't read it. Don't like beer? Fine. Then don't drink it.

Views such as the ones you are presenting are one of the Tea Party's greatest anti-progressive recruiting tools. They alienate many otherwise progressive-minded people, turn them to libertarian ideology instead, and provide people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh ample ways to broad-brush and construct anti-progressive straw men.

People that want to ban things and get rid of freedom of choice and personal responsibility in the name of "public health" are, in my honest opinion, no different than anti-choicers that want to deprive a woman of the right to choose. At their core, neither agree with freedom of choice.

There is a host of toxins (and yes, much of fast food is toxic) that are banned in the name of public health.

40% of McDonald's advertising is directed AT children. Children from ages 0-5 cannot distinguish between the fantasy of advertising and reality.

Last I checked, children from ages 0-5 don't have jobs, don't have their own money, and don't have the means to get to a fast food restaurant by themselves. All a parent has to say is "no."

Let the parents decide what their children can eat...not some busybody bureaucrat.

Last time I looked, most children are exposed to advertising from a very young age, if not from birth.

We have the right to tell MC'Ds to stop intentionally trying to undermine us.

Parents can turn off the television set, too, so that their kids don't even have to make that distinction.

Seriously...billboards, radio, television...where to expect your kids to "be safe?" It ain't gonna happen, which is why so many of us are talking about PARENTING, not about advertising. Like it or not, we're a capitalist society, and part of selling your product is advertising. And part of being a parent is parenting. Not letting your kids tell you what to do, you tell them. You educate them, you instill your values in them. If you don't like McDonald's, teach them that McDonald's suck. It really works, I swear...that's what we did to our two boys. And to this day, neither of them like french fries. Or eat at McDonald's. YOU have a choice. Banning advertising isn't the answer. Being a good parent is.

.

Most western countries ban advertising to children ages 8 and under.

And FYI, the issue is larger than your 2 boys and how fantastic YOU were as a parent.

The recurring theme I see in all your responses is that someone is undermining your relationship with your kids. Dammit, then turn off your television. Don't take them out of the house. Home school.

Or take responsibility for your children. Be a strong parent. Don't expect the government to be your nanny.

.

billion dollar corporation is having on our children and our relationship with our children, we are allowed to band together and demand regulatory brakes on that corporation.

That is, collectively, taking responsibility for our children.

I don't understand what part of being a strong parent people don't get.

predatory advertisement be strictly regulated that people do not understand.

:shrug:

they are fighting an advertising gimmick, not a toxin.

That was a huge leap you just made.

And yes, McDonald's products are dangerous. The industry relies on chemicals to make their food, their agricultural methods are environmentally hazardous, and their manufactured food products contribute to the development of a host of diseases.

Who do you suppose buys the food for these kids? McDonalds, or the parents?

Who should be immune to advertising based on cheap plastic toys?

And the food isn't dangerous.

Eating it in excess is. Which can be said about just about any food.

Milk is unhealthy if you drink too much of it. Shall we ban any milk advertisements that target children?

Certainly, those children are not going to go out an buy cars. It's called and the "nag" factor and instilling brand loyalty

Why do you suppose that is?

They hated money or were bound by unbreakable moral codes prior to today?

No.

It's because parents used to be parents and would simply ignore what their kid wanted, so trying to convince children was pointless, they went for the people who were doing the buying and presumably who were in charge.

What changed?

The parents obviously. They need to learn that it's ok to say "no" to your kid. That in fact you are in charge, not the guy who can't use the toilet on his own.

Didn't think so.

Sure thing buddy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Meal

It was invented in 1977. Meaning that either A) the world was created in 1977 which I suppose is popular or B) there was a long period of time in which the happy meal did not exist.

Also look at those obnoxious car commercials where the kid is embarrassed to be seen with his parents because they got car X instead of car Y.

Those are completely novel.

What many of the them are arguing is that MC'Ds is willfully taunting Parental Responsibility by advertising to an age group that can not understand.

Many parents are trying like hell to exercise that Responsibility but it's a near impossibility with all these irresponsible companies out there whose sole goal is to undermine us by bypassing us and targeting our kids directly.

Why pick McDonald's? It can be argued that McDonald's key market is kids. Many adults only go there because their kids want to go there. So how is that different than advertising "My Little Pony," or Frosted Mini Wheats or juice boxes? One more time...it is up to the parent to set the limits and educate their children. If you think a giant international corporation is looking out for your best interests, you're seriously screwed up.

.

no govt agency has the right to tell me I can't buy my grandkids the occasional
happy meal

if it's a treat for the child or if it's a convenience for the parent. All McDonalds is doing is wanting your child to say they want McDonalds instead of someone else. Parents decide how many times they eat fast food.

I bet kids wouldn't eat a Happy Meal with you.

How intriguing. Guess it's okay when there's "a reason" or something.

Granted, not ALL of DU but certainly a good number.

applauding parents making choices for their own children. And as far as this "it's the advertising" part, there are other things for kids to do besides watch television. Parents also have the choice to turn the television off. I can't think of a single thing that would do more for the health and positive direction of our nation than turning off the damn television and finding other ways to occupy your time.

Teach your kids how to garden? How to play board games with other kids? How to find ways of entertaining themselves instead of having to be entertained?

I'm not sure how any of those things are difficult concepts.

cease devoting 40% of their advertising $$$ targeting children?

100% of the money spent on television advertising would be wasted.

for you and your household. It's kind of like what other people are saying, too - if you don't like McDonald's don't go to McDonald's. If you don't like the advertising on TV, don't watch TV. I can assure you - one can have a very full and enjoyable life without doing either. In fact, you can have a very full and even more enjoyable life, I think, if you don't do either. That doesn't mean you have the right to tell everyone else how to live, just because you want to watch television and go to McDonald's.

having this discussion with you.

like the link you provided is just a euphemism for "jump right in when you agree with me, but shut up, otherwise".

And yes, that was a jab, but if you are so well-adjusted, I'm certain you have an intelligent and well thought-out rejoinder.

I look forward to hearing from you, particularly on the board where everyone can see it, but it isn't necessary.

Do you deny that one is capable of turning off the television set and raising their children? Do you deny that people are fat because of other reasons than scapegoating restaurant chains that people aren't forced to eat at by gunpoint?

Okay, I'll make this easier. Do you know how to cook, and are you teaching your children the very important life skill of "how to feed yourself when there is no McDonald's"?

If not, you should.

children with advertising. If every single parent turned off their TV, the advertisers would funnel their billions of children's advertising dollars to other medium: i.e; the internet, children's books, schools, billboards, educational materials, video games, movies, etc.

"Do you deny that one is capable of turning off the television set and raising their children?"
This has nothing to do with TV (please see my above examples of alternative advertising venues). But why would I deny this? I did just that.

"Do you deny that people are fat because of other reasons than scapegoating restaurant chains that people aren't forced to eat at by gunpoint?"
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In fact, I haven't seen one person on this thread advocate for a ban on fastfood restaurants, let alone a ban on children eating there. The topic at hand, is predatory advertising directed at children.

"Do you deny that people are fat because of other reasons than scapegoating restaurant chains that people aren't forced to eat at by gunpoint?"
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In fact, I haven't seen one person on this thread advocate for a ban on fastfood restaurants, let alone a ban on children eating there. The topic at hand, is predatory advertising directed at children.

Okay - the problem is predatory advertising, but I still have to wonder how that advertising even gets to kids in the first place if parents are being vigilant.

My sister scares the hell out of me with the way she raises her kids - they were unaware that it was actual chicken that got fried until they stayed with my mother, and my sister and her husband had dusty damn pots when I went to visit them for Thanksgiving (which lead to me cooking the entire dinner).

Maybe I'm just a bitch for thinking people should sweep at their own front porch, though, before they start blaming everything else for their problems - and I guess I do see where you are coming from.

It isn't Happy Meals, though, that are making my sister's kids fat - it really is a father and mother with zero cooking abilities and zero motivation to learn any.

Channel One, broadcast is schools has fastfood advertisements. Some districts are allowing fastfood advertisement on school buses. Some schools are accessing free educational materials produced by fastfood corporations. Some schools have fastfood advertisement on report cards.

Some kids go play at other kids houses where vigilance is not a priority.

You seem to think that you shouldn't be subjected to any outside stimulus that makes you think or forces you to interact intelligently with your child. You just want her to have a happy live full of "YES!" Breaking news...that life doesn't exist.

.

I'm sure if you asked around, you'll pick up a few "some people say" things to throw at me, as well.

And putting right out there for all of us to read for ourselves.

.

It is a petty diversion advancing nothing to the discussion.

It is not a "petty diversion." It is advancing the discussion.

In case you haven't noticed, you're not doing so well in this debate. McDonald's is just food. Pizza is just food. Artichokes are just food. Any food that you eat excessively, at the preclusion of other nutrition, will be bad for you.

I HATE McDonald's. I won't eat there. But I don't have a problem with their very existence, as you seem to have. They are a legitimate business, and as such, they advertise the products they sell. If you don't want your kids going to McDonald's, do what my wife and I did with our kids...tell them McDonald's sucks and that their food sucks, and take them to real restaurants instead.

I just don't get your hang-up. Why are you so paranoid about McDonald's advertising? Why can't you just make responsible decisions for your children?

There are many corollaries...a mechanic will tell you never to take your car to Jiffy Lube, for instance. Yet, Jiffy Lube advertises. My Little Pony advertises. Are you able to resist the Jiffy Lube and MLP advertising, yet you can't resist the McDonald's advertising? I just don't get it.

#3) I am not "paranoid about McDonald's. I reject their advertising model that preys on children. #4) Whether or not I've made responsible decisions for my child is not the point. The point is predatory advertising directed towards children. #5) Whether or not that I agree with you that McDonald's is food is not the point. The point is predatory advertising directed towards children.

Toys, breakfast cereals, Wheelies...WTF? How are the producers supposed to build their markets? If they only advertised to parents, we'd all say NO! and it would be over. I don't give a fuck about Cocoa Crisps or Wheelies. They're not marketed towards 50 year old men. One more time...one, two, three more times...YOU ARE THE PARENT. You set the standards for your children. Use the McDonald's marketing as shining examples for your children..."Mickey D's SUCKS and we won't go there." I just don't understand your obsession with McDonald's over all the other bad shit going on in the world. You can refuse to take your children to McDonald's. Let's see you refuse to pay your taxes or fund the Middle East war machine. Establish some serious priorities, and just do your job as a parent!

it without preying on children.

Oh, PUH-LEEZE. If you're selling My Little Pony, you don't sell 'em with ads targeted at 50 year olds. You "prey" on your intended market. Same as Miller selling beer, Domino's selling pizza, or Metamucil selling fiber. You call in "preying." I call it "targeting your market."

.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1127145&mesg_id=1136285

Definition of predatory,

1. Zoology . preying upon other organisms for food.
2. of, pertaining to, or characterized by plunder, pillage, robbery, or exploitation: predatory tactics.
3. engaging in or living by these activities: predatory bands of brigands

You only had to read my post, not make a trip to Funk & Wagnalls.

.

Because in my house we cook seven days a week, and we don't make excuses why we can't do it, since I'm the one doing the cooking, and I'm not making excuses.

Are my personal habits important to the discussion of predatory advertising directed at children?

Take if from me...I'm an Art Director at an advertising agency. I don't care if you're 3 or 33 or a 133...I will find what motivates you and I will target you. That is what adverting is, that's what advertising does.

Do you have the dealer insignia on the back of your car? I don't...I told them explicitly that I know what the CPM is, and if they wanted to use my car as advertising, they'd need to compensate me. You encounter "advertising" everywhere you go. You may not like it, but that is our capitalist society. Being in the biz, I tend to ignore the ads, or at least look at them more cynically. If you can't, if you really believe that your kids will be sucked into McDonald's hell because of their ads, you shouldn't have had kids...or you shouldn't be living in America.

I am an adult. I have the skills to ignore them or look at them cynically. Children do not.

And you can use those skills to educate and influence your children.

.

an industry that spends billions of dollars a year trying to manipulate children and undermine parental authority.

McDonald's is not trying to manipulate children or undermine your authority as a parent.

McDonald's is trying to sell food.

You hate McDonald's. You think parents are too stupid to raise their own kids. I got it.

Seriously now...this is just getting silly. I may disagree with the posts you've made, but lying about what you think? Talk about "is that all you have left." C'mon, Luminous. You're better than that.

Thus, your characterization of what I think, is, in fact, a lie. In fact, these bans are being instigated by parent organizations who members are smart enough to recognize that they are stronger banding together when up against a powerful foe.

"Shhsh, Melody; it's because the nanny state people more enlightened than you or I, have decided what's best for all".

Shhhhh Melody.. It's because the Corporatists are more enlightened than you or I, and have decided that they have a right to try and willfully undermine parental authority by bypassing parents and targeting kids directly. They even fought for the RIGHT to sell and advertize in our very schools.

But hush now child.. We don't question the rights of Corporations or the corporate police will come for us.

Can't you turn the TV off or tell me no even if it means I won't get everything I want, just like adults have to accept in real life?

No, Melody, I have shit for brains and am too lazy to exercise any parental authority over you. I fully expect the government to shield you from any and all negative things you may encounter. I gave up my parental rights as soon as you came out of the womb.

Less nanny state is good.

My mother took us to McDonald's when I was a kid, and frankly, I didn't want a Happy Meal because I didn't like the way they made the hamburger in the Happy meal. I don't like French fries, and I have never liked soft drinks.

I am healthy and active, and I do occasionally indulge in a Big Mac.

If you don't want your kids eating at McDonald's, it's pretty simple - don't take them there. If you can't say no to taking your kids to McDonald's you have far bigger problems than the fact that they want to go to McDonald's in the first place.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But you go ahead and attack away.

Don't waste any time seeing what he has to say. Just attack him for his weight.

Really, you are serious?

That so many DU'ers swallow the mindfucking of our children so happily makes me sick.

Each & every one of us can be our own regulatory agency. Forget the quaint notion of banding together to fight a powerful foe. It is each and every single one of us for ourselves.

Thanks for joining this discussion!

They must put some interesting toys in happy meals these days.

SF has such a ban; NYC is considering one.

The way it works is, toys can only be included with a meal if it falls under a certain number of calories, grams of fat, etc.

So, I propose that a mini-slider burger or a couple of McNuggets be packaged with an extra-small order of fries, or perhaps a hash brown patty or a few Tater Tots. Then, and this is the key, sell these for 2 for $2.99 or whatever the regular Happy Meal costs. That way, kids not only get their salt and fat fix, but two crappy made-in-China toys!

(only partially :sarcasm: )

many municipalities throughout the U.S.

Nice, though, how you included the right wing generated jab at San Francisco.

this isn't really a partisan issue; it's about the Supes and others like Bloomberg (a friend calls him the "tiny fascist"!) being, as one writer put it, "meddlesome".

edit to add: I mentioned SF because a) it's close to me; b) it's the farthest along in the process; and c) its efforts have garnered the most media attention, certainly NOT to bash it!

whether or not they are stupid and counterproductive?

Because, I looked and I can find no town, city, or municipality that has actually enacted a ban.

And why counter productive? Common sense. If they can't get a toy at an SF McDonalds, they'll go south to Mibrae and get one with a toy.

Banning the toys is just stupid, nanny state prohibition for prohibition's sake

Before you reply - tell me, what goal do you want to acheive from a Happy Meal Toy Ban?

Is it to stop kids from eating there? Taking away the toys won't help. Is it to stop parents from feeding their kids there?

Or is it to "punish" fast food for being fast food?

I'm pretty sure its the latter, and no good policy has ever come from that

to assess whether these bans are effective or not.