McDonald's sued over "happy meal"

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has sued McDonald's in California over the fast-food giant's use of toys as come-ons to kids to purchase their products.

According to an NPR dispatch, "The lawsuit asserts that under California's consumer protection laws, McDonald's toy advertising is deceptive. It targets children under 8 years old who don't have the ability to understand advertising."

McDonald's: We're not as bad as arsenic! And we create (pretty lousy) jobs!

Faced with fresh assaults on fast food from politicians and anti- obesity activists, the restaurant industry is gearing up to fight back, emphasizing the role fast-food businesses have played in providing jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities.


That's the lead paragraph from a story in the Los Angeles Times yesterday, and I just have to laugh at the attempt to misdirect.

Are these the only choices?

CBS has a stupid little poll up right now (no link, deliberately), springing off San Francisco's move to ban the use of toys as a food-sales come-on. These are the two options: 

Yes. Parents are responsible for feeding their children and teaching them healthy habits - not the government.

No. It's hard enough to parent without being targeted by greedy corporations. Government should reign them in.

Prelude to the quicky divorce?

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

The Daily Mail reports from Hong Kong on the McWedding, in wich 100 guests can enjoy an entire catered affair for only $400, at the local McDonald's.

I suppose it has the virtue of being unusual, at least until billions and billions decide to do it too, but it's not without drawbacks:


Subscribe to RSS - mcdonald's