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."

The assault on children

I've written before about Corporate Accountability International, which carries an impressive record of effectiveness into its current effort to halt the marketing of fast food to children. That includes their "Retire Ronald" campaign.

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