Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Coito ergo sum]

Mascots aren't "banned" in cigarette advertising in the US. Mascots like Joe Camel were killed in response to the public pressure and the "claim" by the FTC and plaintiffs in some lawsuits that they targeted children. that was never established, and there is no general law in the US that prohibits their use. A prior restraint of that kind would probably be held unconstitutional by the courts. Saying "McDonald's is unhealthy and they target children in their advertising" EVEN IF WE ASSUME IT TO BE TRUE does not mean that the advertising is illegal. If that were the case, then all advertising by Disneyworld, Chuck E. Cheese restaurants and playlands, and candy manufacturers would be illegal.

There is also a significant difference between cigarettes and food. Cigarettes are illegal for children to smoke - so, it's easier to argue that you can't offer to sell cigarettes to people who can't legally smoke them - (an advertisement is an "offer" to sell good, at bottom). Food - even McDonald's food - is legal for everyone to eat. Further, the RELATIVE unhealthiness of McDonald's food is WAY overblown. It's as good as, say - hot dogs, grilled cheese sandwiches, tater tots, french fries, hamburgers, baloney sandwiches, and the like - all of which are sold with wild abandon in stores and fed in huge quantities by parents to their children.

Cigarette ads are banned completely in canaduh. None on the tele, no billboards. Not sure what the deal is in the states. Illegal is never an excuse for anything, cigarettes are legal, weed is illegal, booze is legal, cocaine not legal.

I assume you are all for weed and cocaine being illegal, since "the government bans other things," seems to be your justification. If you are in favor of pot legalization, why? It's not good for you, and neither is cocaine.

Governments are always telling people what they can and cannot do, to ban mcshit ads or crank up the taxes on fast food would simply be par for the course,

That it would. That it would. More of the same bad behavior is not "good."

it would be consistent with other policies or telling people what is good or not good for them. The "legality" of mcshits "food" isn't even an issue, legality doesn't make something right or wrong. Laws also change. The unhealthiness of mcshits "food" is actually underblown, not overblown...is underblown a word? Fast "food" is worse for you than marijuana or, say, cocaine,

I'd love to see any proof of that. I'm sure if you had a kid and someone said you had to give your kid a hamburger form McShit or a snoot full full of coke, you'd opt for the coke. Right?

and as bad for you as cigarettes or alcohol. Of course the rate of use is a determining factor when it comes to health, such as, one mcshit sandwich a month isn't really that bad, same as a cigarette on the weekend or a line of coke every now and again...but if a government feels it can decide what is right or wrong for people based on health than, yes, of course mcshit ads should be banned and mcshit food should be taxed like cigarettes or alcohol.

And, that's why I oppose the government deciding what is good for people based on the amorphous, vague and overly broad te such as "health." And, that's why I think there should be no drinking age (like in some European and other countries), no smoking age (like in some European and other countries), and marijuana and cocaine should be legalized.

Just as a matter of practicalities -- there are FAR more important things for the government to be doing, and focusing on so they get those things right. This bullshit is engaged in by government pricks who like to focus on symbolic and pointless crap, but which gets them in the news and gives them media splashes. If the jerkoffs in government have time for this crap, then we ought to reduce their offices to "part time" until they use all their time on real issues.

[charlou]

McDonalds and KFC and the like now to be given control of UK anti-obesity policy. You couldn't make it up.

Nice .. let the corporations who exploit society dictate policy. Religion, anyone?

[Coito ergo sum]

Fast "food" is worse for you than marijuana or, say, cocaine, and as bad for you as cigarettes or alcohol.

Can you provide some statistics to support that?

Perhaps, if I could get the stats that support this "the RELATIVE unhealthiness of McDonald's food is WAY overblown.Coito ergo sum " which is what I was responding to.

I have. I've posted comparisons between McDonald's happy meal foods and other foods, and shown that the calorie, fat, carb and other contents are about the same, or in favor of the happy meal. Remember, the happy only has about 630 calories (that's WITH fries - the meal allows parents to choose apple slices instead of fries).

Look up the figures for pancakes with maple syrup - a very common breakfast dish fed to children - and MARKETED to children all the time. A medium sized breakfast has as many calories and more sugar than a happy meal.

One grilled hot dog on a bun has 315 calories, or thereabouts, and kids in grammar school will normally eat 2 of those, and/or have side dishes. The 18.5 grams of fat per hot dog is very high. Parents feed them hot dogs all the time - and Oscar Meijer markets them right to children, children in the adverts, and sing along songs, etc.

And one of America's most popular foods -- pizza with peperoni -- over 300 calories in an average slice and LOADED with carbs and fat. Marketed to children too.

And, a kids' favorite -- the "grilled cheese sandwich." LOL -- parents feed those to kids all the time -- 670 calories per sandwich! And, then they add like macaroni and cheese or potato salad on the side.

Those are common kids' foods - and we're going to claim that somehow the McDonald's Happy Meal is to blame???? Parents. IT'S YOUR FAULT YOUR KIDS ARE FAT. If you didn't feed them too much, they wouldn't be fat! Own up to it.

[sandinista]

It's not just calories that make Mcshit the shit that it is. It's also the additives, sugar, sodium and fat. This is without mentioning the possibility of steroids, growth hormones and anti biotics in the meat, I say possibility because I think their meat sources differ from country to country. Ahhh, i won't try to convince you that mcshit is...well, shit, it is and if you don't believe it whatever, don't bother me.

http://ecosalon.com/15_reasons_never_to ... cdonald_s/

[Mahou]

Ultimately, all of this is irrelevant. McDonald's food is not good for you and no one is denying this. Exactly how bad it is isn't really the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is whether or not it's right to ban Ronald McDonald because he's a health concern. My opinion is that it's ridiculous. It feels to me like the random searches at the airport. It's a placebo. It might make us feel better, but it doesn't actually solve the problem. Most McDonald's ads I've seen don't even include Ronald anymore. Is diminishing a company's freedom justified because some parents can't make their kids get up and jog a mile?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not just calories that make Mcshit the shit that it is. It's also the additives, sugar, sodium and fat.

No worse than the other foods I've mentioned, all of which are shoveled into kids' mouths by the bucketload at home.

This is without mentioning the possibility of steroids, growth hormones and anti biotics in the meat,

Same stuff contained in meat purchased at the supermarket. Buy some ground chuck, and that's what you're getting.

I say possibility because I think their meat sources differ from country to country. Ahhh, i won't try to convince you that mcshit is...well, shit, it is and if you don't believe it whatever, don't bother me.

I didn't say it was good for you. I said it's overblown, which it is. Also, relative to other foods people eat, it's not that bad. It's a scapegoat on which parents can lay the blame of their kids obesity, while making them another tray of "bagel bites" and handing them a hot dog with a side of macaroni and cheese, and allowing them to snack on potato chips and candy frequently.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ultimately, all of this is irrelevant. McDonald's food is not good for you and no one is denying this. Exactly how bad it is isn't really the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is whether or not it's right to ban Ronald McDonald because he's a health concern. My opinion is that it's ridiculous. It feels to me like the random searches at the airport. It's a placebo. It might make us feel better, but it doesn't actually solve the problem. Most McDonald's ads I've seen don't even include Ronald anymore. Is diminishing a company's freedom justified because some parents can't make their kids get up and jog a mile?

[Warren Dew]

McDonalds and KFC and the like now to be given control of UK anti-obesity policy. You couldn't make it up.

Makes the same amount of sense as the San Francisco ordinance.

No, it's capitalism at its finest, lobbying a corrupt and weak government to let it write legislation favorable for itself, and have them pass it for its greatest benefits.

What you mean is that it's socialism at its best, with the government setting up a "policy" for what people can eat.

[Svartalf]

Warren,
a) the government does not pass ordinances on what people can eat (or grease burgers would already be forbidden and fastfood joints closed in the entire city), it regulates that toys and similar bonuses cannot be used to entice young children to as their parents to get them unhealthy food... if they want a burger and fries meal, they can still get one... but that's been hashed over already

b) you answered to a comment out of its context.

So I conclude you either are a complete moron or are arguing in bad faith, good bye.

[charlou]

So I conclude you either are a complete moron or are arguing in bad faith, good bye.

Reminder: Make conclusions about the person's argument, not the person. Play nice, please.

[Svartalf]

I know I shouldn't, but that much concentrated hooah probably means that it actually was a case of "and", rather than 'either/or' ... just leaving benefit of the doubt wass playing nice... believe me, that was really the least incendiary response possible, and I've taken measures so I won't be tempted to attack that particular poster again.

[Tigger]

I know I shouldn't, but that much concentrated hooah probably means that it actually was a case of "and", rather than 'either/or' ... just leaving benefit of the doubt wass playing nice... believe me, that was really the least incendiary response possible, and I've taken measures so I won't be tempted to attack that particular poster again.

Who said that?

[maiforpeace]

Class Action Suit Filed Against McDonald's for Luring Kids to Junk Food

Jason Mick (Blog) - December 16, 2010 3:22 PM

"Happy Meals" not so happy for children's health, say plaintiffs

America's obesity epidemic is more severe than that of any other large industrialized nation. In America today, over 30 percent of adults and 15 percent of children are obese. More so than any other medical issue, obesity is crippling the U.S. economy and health care system.

On Wednesday, a landmark lawsuit was filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest accusing McDonald's, America's largest fast food chain, of luring children into unhealthy eating with toys in "Happy Meals".

Monet Parham, a mother of two in Sacramento, was one of the sponsoring plaintiffs in the case and comments, "I object to the fact that McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat."

Remember Joe Camel?

The case is similar in some regards to the class action lawsuits filed against Camel Cigarettes over its use of the "Joe Camel" cartoon character. While eating junk food isn't illegal for children like smoking cigarettes is, many physicians say the risks associated with obesity are as bad as smoking cigarettes or worse. It should be noted that Camel Cigarettes was forced to discontinue its iconic character and settle its lawsuits out of court for a tidy sum.

Could the Happy Meal be next?

Lawyers for the CSPI say that McDonald's is both harming children by luring children with the toys and harming its competitors which no longer offer similar prizes with their kids meals. States Steve Gardner, CSPI litigation director, "Every time McDonald's markets a Happy Meal directly to a young child, it exploits a child's developmental vulnerability and violates several states' consumer protection laws, including the California Unfair Competition Law."

The group was also critical of McDonald's claims that it had made its Happy Meals "healthier" by adding Apple Dippers or low-fat milk as options. They point out that fries and pop are still the most commonly served options for the Happy Meal.

CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson states, "McDonald's congratulates itself for meals that are hypothetically possible, though it knows very well that it's mostly selling burgers or chicken nuggets, fries, and sodas to very young children."

McDonald's spokesperson Bridget Coffing refused to directly comment on the lawsuit, but defended the happy meals, stating, "We are proud of our Happy Meals and intend to vigorously defend our brand, our reputation and our food. We are confident that parents understand and appreciate that Happy Meals are a fun treat, with quality, right-sized food choices for their children that can fit into a balanced diet."

What the Suit Means to American's Health, The Fast Food Business

The idea of government courts policing American's eating habits and replacing the role of proper parenting is controversial. And its important to note that government intervention is partly responsible for the success of fast food, as farm subsidies have reduced the cost of beef and corn to much lower levels than Europe and Asia.

For McDonald's, the suit couldn't have come at a much worse time. The company was just hit by a massive data loss, in which it may have lost as many as 13 million customers' names and email addresses. And over the last couple years the company's image has been damaged by the nonfiction best-seller/documentary Supersize Me.

The case is significant for other fast food companies, as well. Depending on its outcome, other competitors, like Taco Bell, which does often offer toys with kids meals, may have to eliminate them as well. And if the practice is condoned by the court, competitors who aren't offering toys may feel compelled to keep up.

In other words, this super-size case may ultimately be the prelude to the U.S. government either practicing a hands-off policy as Americans' waists swell; or opting to try to force consumers to healthier options, via either court rulings or legislation.

[Hermit]

Coito in 9... 8... 7... ....

He'll undoubtedly berate us once again that it's not fattening food that causes obesity.

[sandinista]

Coito in 9... 8... 7... ....

He'll undoubtedly berate us once again that it's not fattening food that causes obesity.