Sue McDonald’s? Sounds Frivolous to me

June 23rd, 2010. By AbiK

So The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is targeting McDonald’s and its ubiquitous Happy Meal toys. Seems if McDonald’s doesn’t stop dangling those toys in front of wide-eyed kids, the CSPI is set to sue the fast-food giant.

Now, I’m no fan of Happy Meals. Though, I will say, kid-sized menus across the board have slowly been responding to consumer demand for healthier options to be included in the movie-du-jour carry-out meal box. Options like low-fat milk, apple slices, carrot sticks… Still, let’s face it, a Happy Meal cannot compare to a wholesome meal.

But, as far as I’m concerned, this is another example of the “who’s responsible here?” question.

Here’s a typical example of how Happy Meal marketing plays out in my home—which includes three kid-meal aged kids:

Mom (aka me): Darn, I wanted to get that roast in the oven but now it’s too late!

Kids: Let’s go to McDonald’s!!!!!

Mom: No.

If you’ve noticed, there’s a two-letter word there that flew—effortlessly I might add—right out of my mouth. In case you missed it, it was “No.”

As in No, we’re not going to McDonald’s. No, we’re not getting any Happy Meals. No, I’m not letting any Happy Meal toys enter the house only to find themselves heading to a landfill within mere minutes of the meal’s consumption. If you haven’t yet noticed, Mommy doesn’t do Happy Meals. I do Happy. I do Meals. But the two don’t co-exist at the dinner table.

So the CSPI sent McDonald’s a letter stating that Mickey D’s is violating state consumer protection laws in four states and Washington, DC. According to cnn.com, the letter gives McDonald’s 30 days to agree to stop using toys in its Happy Meals.

The CSPI also seems to like extremes when it comes to the use of analogy—granted, it’s for effect, but still—here’s what their litigation director is quoted as having said in a prepared statement: “McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children…It’s a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction.”

If I take that literally, Ronald McDonald ought to be on a searchable sex offender database and there ought to be an Amber alert sent out for every kid who may stop by McDonald’s sans mommy or daddy. I think you can see the absurdity in the CSPI’s litigation director’s statement and my literal interpretation.

I see this as a much simpler issue—a channel Nancy Reagan “just say no” issue. Parents, just say “No” to your kids. Most kids that I know that are ordering Happy Meals are a) not old enough to drive themselves to McDonald’s, and b) not old enough to necessarily have the cash (or other means) to buy a Happy Meal. Who does? Mommy and Daddy. And Mommy and Daddy need to say “No.”

I clearly differ in opinion from the CSPI’s director, Michael Jacobsen, who in the cnn.com article is quoted as acknowledging that parents bear much of the responsibility for children’s eating habit—but he goes on to say, “But multi-billion-dollar corporations make parents’ job nearly impossible by giving away toys and bombarding kids with slick advertising.”

Here’s my response to Mr. Jacobsen: That’s bullsh-t.

And let me introduce you to Larry Winget (see vid above), author of “Your Kids are Your Own Fault” and aka The Pitbull of Personal Development. I’m not always a fan of Larry’s, but I guarantee you, whatever he might have to say about Happy Meals, I’m in agreement with.

I’m no fan of Happy Meals. That’s why they don’t enter my house. And by the way, I’m betting that if you order a Happy Meal sometime in late July, you’ll still find a Happy Meal toy inside.

Tags: CSPI, McDonald's, McDonald's Happy Meal

This was posted on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 at 2:59 pm and is filed under Consumer Fraud, Emerging Issues . Feel free to respond, or trackback. Read our comments policy.