Editor's note: This week's podcast has been interrupted to bring you breaking news on the McDonald's Happy Meal lawsuit. The podcast returns on New Year's Eve.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest is filing suit against McDonald's because Happy Meals exist. Well, CSPI is filing suit along with 2 sets of parents for deceptive advertising. This makes the San Francisco decision to require food quality upgrades in Happy Meals seem downright traditional.
The Happy Meal has been around since 1979. You buy a meal, you get a toy. That hasn't changed in 31 years, not sure when the deceptive advertising angle arrives.
McDonald's has been marketing to children even before Willard Scott dressed up as Ronald McDonald in Washington, DC many many many birthdays ago. While we see less of the clown and his missing friends, Ronald still has a presence in the fast food chain's marketing,
Now, McDonald's relies on Disney and now Dreamworks and other companies to get kids into the restaurant. Toy companies also market to kids.
By that logic, parents should go after toy companies because their kids want to buy their toys.
One of the co-plantiffs brought the case because of the constant requests she was getting from her daughters, 6 and 2, about Happy Meals and Shrek toys. She limited the kids to monthly visits, but the newest Shrek toys required weekly visits to get them all.
This is why you file a lawsuit? If I had known this, I would have whined a lot more as a child.
How did this woman's kids learn about Shrek and the toys? Television. And videos.
Children — especially when they're 2 — don't learn about Shrek on the streets. They are exposed to them for a reason.
The suit notes that “Children 8 years old and younger do not have the cognitive skills to understand the persuasive intent of marketing and advertising.” Apparently, this lack of cognitive skills goes well beyond 8 years old.
8-year-old kids aren't laying down their allowances for Happy Meals. Kids aren't driving themselves to McD's. Their parents or guardians are taking them to McDonald's to eat the food and get the prizes.
This doesn't let McDonald's off the hook. They are using children's love of fictional characters to harass their parents into buying them junk food for the toys. And though what McDonald's is doing probably isn't ethical, it's extremely legal.
McDonald's is based in a country where marketing to kids has reached obscene lengths. There are 30-minute programs that feel like infomercials for toys. Hasbro launched its own cable channel this fall in an effort to promote Hasbro toys.
Those who say they love kids aren't fighting back enough at all the ways our children are being exploited. Even if they bring down Happy Meals, your kids will still be exploited for marketing purposes 24/7.
As a parent, if your kids are screaming loud enough for the toys, drive to McDonald's without your kids. Buy the Happy Meal, check to make sure the toy is correct, and throw out the food. Or give the food to a homeless person who doesn't have enough to eat.
Yes, McDonald's gets its money. Toy companies give away their toys. Your kids get the toys without eating the fast food. They play with those toys at the dinner table while eating a nutritious dinner that you cooked for them.
True, you will have paid about 3 bucks for a toy that Chinese kids probably made for 2.3 cents. The kids get the toy without associating the toy with fast food.
McDonald's won't sell you the toy individually, but the value of the toy is worth the price of the meal. Nobody says you have to eat the food.
Thanks to the considerable marketing to children, they will want toys, especially at this time of year. Giving them the toys seems an acceptable practice. Associating fast food with toys isn't good, even if it has some acceptance in society.
Parents can step in, if they choose, and remove that association. Individual choice — parents choose for themselves which option to choose. They just need to know that they can choose toys without fast food.
Comments