McDonald's sued for marketing Happy Meals to children

[alp227]

Source: Los Angeles Times

A Sacramento mother and the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed a lawsuit Wednesday against McDonald's Corp., alleging that its practice of giving toys with children's meals is deceptive to children.

The organization had been threatening to sue McDonald's since last summer, claiming that the Happy Meals toys constitute a method of circumventing parental control and teach children unhealthy eating. The complaint, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, also accuses the company of false advertising.

The lawsuit alleges that "McDonald's exploits very young California children and harms their health by advertising unhealthy Happy Meals with toys directly to them" and that "children 8 years old and younger do not have the cognitive skills and the developmental maturity to understand the persuasive intent of marketing and advertising."

In a call with reporters, Monet Parham, a Sacramento mother of two, said she was bringing the case because of the constant requests for McDonald's Happy Meals.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mcdonalds-lawsuit-20101215,0,396761.story

---

San Francisco recently banned toys in kids meals unless such meals met nutritional standards.

[DJ13]

1. A Sacramento mother

Uh, you have the obligation to tell your child "no" if you feel something isnt healthy for your kids, no one holds a gun to your head and forces you to give in.

[CreekDog]

3. so kids can only buy happy meals when accompanied by a parent?

true or not true?

[DJ13]

8. Hace you ever seen a child buying a Happy Meal without a parent there?

[AlbertCat]

24. Hell, I give 5 year old some $$$ and send him off to eat where he wants!

Doesn't everyone? :shrug:

[Yupster]

62. My five year old gets to buy herself a meal

on Saturdays because after mowing the lawn, she's too tired to cook.

[4_TN_TITANS]

83. My five year old get a happy meal for a treat once a week...

as long as the firewood has been split and stacked neatly. Why are they always too tired to cook? Kids aren't made like the used to be...

[Yupster]

102. On a serious note though

I really do like the Southwest Salad at McDonalds, and the parfait for 99 cents can't be beat.

[CreekDog]

30. yes i have

and as a kid i also did.

in San Francisco no less.

next question?

[Very_Boring_Name]

34. If parents aren't able to keep track of where their 8 year old has dissapeared to

Then they aren't very good parents to begin with.

[CreekDog]

37. that's not the point...why are you being obtuse about this? it's about *MARKETING* to children

we have laws against marketing certain things to children. they are appropriate.

[Very_Boring_Name]

40. Except that your point was parents can't "just say no" because the child will go there alone

My point is, letting your 8 year old go to mcdonalds on their own without supervision makes you an even worse parent than the ones who can't learn to say no.

[KamaAina]

87. I thought of that

but, unlike tobacco, fast food is not an age-restricted product.

[greiner3]

11. And which fast food joint does not have a 'happy meal?'

substitute? Come on, most foods marketed to children come with a hook whether it's a toy, sugar or association to a media event. Children who are constantly told no for every wish they make known to their parents will develop problems as an adult.

I would say your children say to themselves that they will understand why they get nothing as children. I'm sure they laugh at their peers who flaunt the newest toys, devices and clothing. Your children will pass this excellent parenting onto their children and so on. You are the best.

[woodsprite]

80. Wendy's may not have much better food, but most of their 'give-aways'

are better meaning somewhat educational (family game oriented, trivia, books about history/science, educational CDs, etc.) Of course, you can also substitute a baked potato, yogurt or mandarin orange sections for fries with the kids meal there, so they do have other redeeming qualities if you have to eat out in a hurry.

That mother should just say "NO".

[Scout]

90. "Children who are constantly told no for every wish they make known to their parents will develop pr

this is EXACTLY why there are so many fucked up bratty kids today! plus assumptions that parents who say "NO" to happy meals say no to every wish their child makes known to them.....

too many boomer parents just can't say no to their little darlings, because it will damage their self esteem!

did your parents never tell you "no"? are you damaged?

[JackRiddler]

127. Strawman.

The post you respond to did not say, "never say no." It said, "Children who are constantly told no" will develop problems. Just as surely as if they are constantly told yes.

All of which has nothing to do with McDonald's right as a predator to target a vulnerable group, children, with manipulative advertising. Why do you want to defend that practice?

[Scout]

129. splitting hairs

not much difference in meaning in what the poster said: "Children who are constantly told no for every wish they make known to their parents will develop problems as an adult"

and you apparently did not read my entire post, you know, the part where i said this: "plus assumptions that parents who say "NO" to happy meals say no to every wish their child makes known to them....."

i am not defending McDonald's practice by stating that parents are the ones who should parent their children. we don't need new laws, statutes and policies for every fucking thing. save them for actual serious dangers that parents have no control over.

learn to read for comprehension, please.

[Devil_Fish]

Yea, and McD's wouldn't be able to directly market to kids with no TV in the house. I got rid of my

TV. Nothing but a lieing Waste of space and time any way. McD's will not be marketing to my child, directly or otherwise.

[EFerrari]

46. So, your child is in your home 24/7 and never hosts other children?

That could work.

/typo

[Luminous Animal]

95. McDonalds advertised on kid's report cards. Offering a free Happy Meal for good grades.

http://consumerist.com/2007/12/mcdonalds-advertises-on-elementary-school-report-cards.html

[Devil_Fish]

105. Yea, they stoped that shit, but if they did it again, I would sue too.

http://consumerist.com/2008/01/mcdonalds-stops-advertising-on-elementary-school-report-cards.html

[JackRiddler]

56. Parents have an obligation to fight predators who try to brainwash their children.

There's nothing exaggerated in my language. McDonald's is a predator. It does not have the interests of children in mind. It wants children to eat bad food. To that end, it employs advertising. Which, when it uses clowns and toys to entice little children, is brainwashing.

Explain to me why McDonald's has any right to solicit little children via the television. Children are helpless to understand what is being done to them or to make decisions. And it is done to them by surprise and ubiquitously, in a way their parents cannot always avoid.

Parents shouldn't be subjected to a killer clown enticing their children to eat crap. Why should McDonald's (or any other advertising predator who targets children) get to persuade children to whine at their parents all day, until the parents either break down, or "do the right thing" and have to keep hearing all the whining?

What made McDonald's a legitimate party to the parent-child relationship?

[melm00se]

60. oh c'mon

Explain to me why McDonald's has any right to solicit little children via the television. Children are helpless to understand what is being done to them or to make decisions. And it is done to them by surprise and ubiquitously, in a way their parents cannot always avoid.

why does ANY company have the right solicit ANYONE via the television?

the fact is that you give an advertiser tacit approval when you brought the idiot box into your house and pressed the "on" button.

[Lance_Boyle]

61. 'What made McDonald's a legitimate party to the parent-child relationship?'

If anything, the parent who allowed it to be so did. Most parents (and others) think of it as a place to get cheap food quick. If some parents are unable to tell their children "no" then those parents have a problem way bigger than a burger joint - they're effin' incompetent, ineffectual, lazy, and/or stupid.

[JackRiddler]

81. A large marketing budget and the fact that it's legal to aim propaganda at children...

are the means by which McDonald's and other commercial predators grab headspace of children, even in homes that most definitely are not inviting McDonald's to come in and do some brainwashing.

I don't think you have children. If you do, I feel sorry for them, if you are the sort who really believes there is an absolute NO in all cases when they get something in their heads.

[Luminous Animal]

97. What about the porn industry? Should they have access to your kids?

After all, it's you can just say no! And if you holler, you are effin' incompetent, ineffectual, lazy, and/or stupid.

[JackRiddler]

98. Excellent boiling down to the point.

[Luminous Animal]

112. Thank you. I started a thread here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x23661

Needless to say, it is not being received well!

[JackRiddler]

132. Here's a new try, without the porn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x27432

[Luminous Animal]

96. Yep. Advertising to children is child abuse.

[WolverineDG]

109. TVs still come with an "OFF" switch

as well as "parental controls." Not my problem (or McD's) if you don't use them.

dg

[JackRiddler]

111. Do billboards come with an off switch? What about peer groups?

Do you think McDonald's should have the right to brainwash the children of those who are too "irresponsible" to avoid having their kids see the commercials?

Why are you on the side of McDonald's right to occupy the head-space of children?

What is McDonald's to children? A friend?

[ejpoeta]

122. that's why you parent your kids. it's called parenting. some people don't seem to want to have to

do that. there are influences everywhere. if we just hide them away from the world then eventually they will be in the world with no way to navigate it or to make decisions. mcdonalds does not occupy the 'headspace of children'. unless you sit yours in front of a tv all day. then you have bigger problems than commercials.

[JackRiddler]

126. You keep shifting this to the parents, as though any action by the corporation is legitimate.

Who here is talking about hiding children away from the world?

Yes, "there are influences everywhere." So? Does that mean we must accept any influence, especially in this case one TARGETED at children? (This is important. It's not some random influence of thousands in the environment. It is specifically targeted at children.)

Please answer this, if you will: McDonald's doesn't spend billions a year on marketing to children because they think it won't work. Should McDonald's and other advertisers have the right to target children, who are highly vulnerable, with manipulative techniques, designed to get them to desire bad food?

Should children whose parents are not in your view "responsible" be made to suffer this manipulation more than would be the case if McDonald's ability to target them was restricted?

.

[WolverineDG]

136. Are you incapable of saying "No?"

:eyes:

dg

[JackRiddler]

57. DJ13, are you a parent or do you take care of any children? Do you see any regularly?

Or do you merely wish to apply free-market platitudes in defense of what McDonald's does to children?

[PoliticAverse]

2. A pity more parents...

don't have the cognitive skills and the developmental maturity to say no.

[saigon68]

55. They are obesity Role Models

[JackRiddler]

84. Yes, which is why the stupid and backward should be fair game for any kind of predator.

I'm dispensing with your euphemisms, by the way. Why circomlocute, PoliticAverse?

We should all admire McDonald's for taking advantage of the stupid, and fucking up the children of the stupid for life.

Also, any parent who can't magically make all messages from McDonald's and other commercial predators disappear from their children's world at all times is responsible for that.

If you let your child look at billboards, or see other children who then talk about McDonald's, it's your fault. In fact, if you live in a neighborhood with billboards: It's your fault. You must lack cognitive skills. It's on the parents for not living in a gated community with a cook and a backyard garden.

[hughee99]

4. Good for her!

I'm glad to see some parents aren't giving into this "personal responsibility" fad and instead are standing up for parents everywhere to say that seeing 30 second commercials a few times a day unfairly has more influence over their children than the hours they spend with them. If she is successful (which she won't be), I'm sure her children will enjoy being playground pariahs as the kids whose mom got happy meal toys banned because their mother couldn't explain to them why happy meals were not good for you. :sarcasm:

[JackintheGreen]

6. You almost had me going there

You. You wacky.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. So say "no", and stop blaming others.

[Zywiec]

7. You can't say no when McDonalds is circumventing parental control n/t

[Pavulon]

15. By holding a literal gun to parents heads...

right. If you dont take you kid to mcdonalds we will KILL you.

Please, my parents said no. Maybe mom should communicate that to their kids.

[TheCowsCameHome]

19. Right. All hail McDonalds, the mighty and all-caring McDonalds

or the clown critter will unleash it's all wrath and fury on Mom and Dad.

:rofl:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

27. Yeah, Obama naming Ronald McDonald as head of Children's Services....

....was the low point.

[snooper2]

72. Are you fucking serious

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Really, thanks for the laugh...now I have people from surrounding cubes coming over to see what's so funny...

On edit, they think it's a pretty funny statement as well :hi:

[Zywiec]

74. It's directly from the OP

I tried to go back and add the sarcasm tag, but it was too late.

Unfortunately that tag needs to be added more and more these days.

At least you got a good chuckle!

:hi:

[snooper2]

75. Ah, gotcha..`

:hi:

[AngryOldDem]

89. Oh bullshit.

That's what I said when I first heard of this ridiculous lawsuit. This just goes to show how many parents are literally held hostage by their kids, and their kids know it and exploit it to the max.

If you don't want your kids getting Happy Meals, DON'T BUY THEM. Make it clear before you even set foot in the store that Happy Meals are off the table for discussion. In other words, be the adult (and the parent) and JUST. SAY. NO.

But I guess it's just easier to file a lawsuit and make the corporation conform to behavior that somehow you, as the parent, find yourself incapable of modeling.

(And for perhaps the one person who will read this, I'm using a generic "you" and not singling out any particular poster.)

Really, at the end of the day, the only person who can "circumvent" parental control is the parent him- or herself.

[Zywiec]

91. Please see reply #74

:hi:

[AngryOldDem]

117. I did.

I also saw the interview with the plaintiff of this suit on one of the morning news shows on Wednesday.

[Luminous Animal]

94. Do you think that the porn industry should advertise to children? After all,

a parent can just say no.

[abelenkpe]

9. The animated commercials are really nice

My kids are always commenting on the space man commercial for McDonalds happy meals. It's very beautiful. They don't want the food though. Sometimes they ask for a toy advertised, but you don't have to buy the food to get the toy.

[ejpoeta]

17. i tell the kids we could find something at the dollar store if they REALLY needed a toy in their

lunch.

[abelenkpe]

35. That works too. :) nt

[John Kerry VonErich]

10. frivolous

nt

[Mz Pip]

12. How hard can it be?

My kids wanted all kinds of crap when they were little. I said "No." There were TV programs they couldn't watch, movies they couldn't see, food they couldn't eat, places I wouldn't let them go. The list was long.

Parenting takes constant vigilance. Saying "no" is part of that. I didn't need a lawsuit to do what I signed up to do.

[MikeW]

22. finally someone rational

My kids also know the operational context of 'NO'

and my list is pretty long to. Goes with parenting.

[Mz Pip]

51. and guess what?

They weren't traumatized by not getting everything they wanted, or being said "no" to when other parents said "yes."

They are both in their 30s and are healthy, happy adults. And they still love their parents. ;-)

[Luminous Animal]

93. When did we get to the place where parenting became the gatekeeper against a billion $ industry?

Why do we live in a society that consistently pits the manufactured desires (advertising) of our children against us? What is wrong with developing a society in which we are more apt to positively affirm our childrens' choices rather than be put in a an oppositional relationship with them?

[Mz Pip]

104. And what would that look like?

Who would decide what a parent is capable of doing or not in light of advertizing? we already have many rules and regulation that protect our children. Banning cigarette ads was a good thing. Now people want to sue over Happy Meal ads? That should be a fairly easy thing for a parent to deal with. I just don't get the point of these kinds of lawsuits.

And seriously, how is deciding what your kid can eat creating an oppositional relationship? Good grief, as parents we deal with all kinds of things that can harm our kids one way or another. That's our job. I rarely bought junk food and I never thought I was going up against some unstoppable corporation, that I was fighting some losing battle. It wasn't that hard to say, "No you can't have Fruit Loops but you can have Cheerios." Corporations, like it or not, provide most of what we consume, wear, drive. That horse left the gate a century ago. And parents are the gatekeepers against whatever things they believe will harm their children. Parents are not powerless and shouldn't be so willing to concede that they have no power, especially over stuff like a damn Happy Meal.

There's nothing wrong with developing a society that affirms children's choices. I think a lot of parents do that alll the time. It's called positive reinforcement.

[Luminous Animal]

113. I never made the argument that parents are powerless. But, united parents are even more powerful.

It has been well established that the advertising industry preys on the weakness inherent in child's decision making process. They also prey on the weaknesses of parents towards their children. That is, they devise advertising that purposefully pits children against their parents' better judgment thus undermining parental authority. It is more difficult to divvy out positive reinforcement when the opportunities for offering such become narrower and narrower.

It took anti-lead activists 70 years to remove lead products from U.S. In the interim, the little Dutch Boy led a very successful campaign against them by, for one, appealing to children.

[Mz Pip]

115. I just can't equate

lead in paint with Happy Meals. Lead in paint was pretty much unavoidable and the push to remove was a fight worth fighting.

Banning Happy Meal ads, not so much.

[MikeW]

106. the bubblewrap principle

You cant remove all of the negative things from live. Besides being instructed and then becoming responsible for making choices is a LEARNING process for children.

[Abq_Sarah]

13. Oh goody .... another frivilous lawsuit

From the junk science connoisseurs at CSPI.

[alp227]

29. you got a problem with Center for Science in the Public Interest?

Rick Berman, the fast-food lobbyist, is MUCH worse. Berman, the National Restaurant Association, et al. and CSPI are big-time rivals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSPI#Criticisms

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. No I think she just has a problem with frivolous lawsuits. n/t

[KurtNYC]

66. junk science ?

you don't need to be stephen hawking to see childhood obesity and childhood diabetes rates growing.

Are you saying that stuff they put on movie popcorn is NOT crap? Chinese food is NOT loaded with pork fat ? Carbonated corn syrup and saturated fat ARE healthy afterall ?

[Abq_Sarah]

123. Saturated fat?

I have no problem with it. And as for movie popcorn, it became crap once the brains at CSPI who declared coconut oil was causing heart disease. The same group that declared there was no evidence the trans fats they were pushing were harmful? Sorry, CSPI is the last group I'd trust when it comes to nutritional information.

[KurtNYC]

128. CSPI is AGAINST trans fats

http://www.cspinet.org/transfat/

always has been.

Hydrogenated coconut oil is trans fat.

[tomm2thumbs]

14. two words: Cracker Jack

[KurtNYC]

65. and breakfast cereals

I used to watch my neighbors dump all the cereal on the table to get whatever cheap piece of crap was at the bottom of that box.

[tomm2thumbs]

134. exactly

I had learned to reach around a box on it's side and grab the prize out - of course the cereal box would not be replaced with a new hidden prize until that was was finished, so would begrudgingly eventually eat the cereal too

ooooh... a mini terrarium! hahahah



and I do remember the glow-in-the-dark pen too

(sigh)

*added pic

[ejpoeta]

16. this is baloney. i am the parent and have the ability to drive by these places.

we rarely ever go to mcdonalds or burger king or wendy's. yech. i get the 'mcstomach ache'. and the idea that bringing kids there as kids sets them up to go there as adults is crap too.... i remember us going there as a kid for birthday parties and other times. and i HATE mcdonalds now. so what if they market happy meals to kids. they market all kinds of crap to kids. it doesn't mean the kids get it does it? my kids LOVE to constantly ask to go to some place or another... to go get a frosty at wendys.... i know a word... it's called NO! when i go to the store they always want to buy toys!! should i sue the store because they put all that stuff at the kids eye level on purpose??? yes it's annoying but i know how to say no to my kids. they whine. they cry. and then eventually they get the picture. it's called parenting.

[Luminous Animal]

71. I suppose you also wouldn't care if porn was marketed to your child.After all, you can always say no

Why should parents be put in the position of constantly saying no? I prefer living in a society that promotes positive interactions between parent and child. It is important to me that I say yes, yes, YES, more often than no, no, no.

[ejpoeta]

78. give me a break. porn is not the same as food! and it is normal for kids to test their boundaries.

they will do it no matter what you do. it doesn't mean your interactions are all negative. i say yes to my kids..... and i say no.... when warranted.

[Luminous Animal]

92. What McDonald's sells is not food. It is man-made un-nutritious products.

What we now allow to be sold as food would have been disallowed under the original FDA rule. And the pornfood industry spends billions on psychological research, advertising, and campaign contributions to brainwash my kid and yours into believing that what they want and are eating is food.

You may draw the line at pornography, but I really do not see that you have any ethical leg to stand on. If the pornfood market has free reign to try to reach into and influence our kids' brain patterns and the only thing between it and us is that we taking personal responsibility and CONSTANTLY (your word) saying no, then why not the sexual porn industry? After all, all a parent has to do to combat sexual porn directed at kids is to constantly say no.

[ejpoeta]

116. you need to go get that loose screw tightened. give me a break.

there are all kinds of influences on our kids. our job as parents is to teach them boundaries, so friggin what if they show commercials for mcdonalds on tv. the point is as a parent I don't have to take them to mcdonalds jsut because they saw a commercial and say they want to go there. yes, kids will CONSTANTLY ask for things. that's what kids do. their job is to TEST BOUNDARIES. this bs argument about marketing porn to kids is just some ridiculous thing you want to throw in there because you have no actual argument.

[JackRiddler]

100. Obviously you don't have the power to stop McDonald's from occupying your children's minds.

No one does.

Never mind how responsible you are and how you can resist your children's whining.

Why should you be forced to do so?

More importantly, why should McDonald's have the right to invade the minds of your children, who as children are highly vulnerable?

[ejpoeta]

118. mcdonalds doesn't 'invade their minds'. they want all kinds of things

they see on tv when they are allowed to watch it which isn't much. it's life. that's how it is. children may be 'vulnerable' but they are kids. i am the parent. i am not 'forced' to do anything. it's called being a parent. kids want things. that's how it is. they want moon dough. and they want to get command strips because they come off cleanly with no damage. they want american girl dolls. they want lots of things. but i am the parent. and i can explain to my kids why we aren't going to mcdonalds. and i can explain that we could just as easily get a much better toy somewhere else. i hate mcdonalds. i rarely go there. hell i rarely eat out period. but i am not going to blame them for advertising on tv. they are not invading my kids' minds. i don't see them as any different than any other annoying advertisement on tv.

[liberal N proud]

18. head shake

:shrug:

[KansDem]

20. The real controversy is why does McD's even exist?

The fact that McD's is unhealthy is controversial enough, but why are we taxpayers paying for it?

Beef is subsidized by taxpayers;
Corn, the feed for cows, is subsidized by taxpayers;
Fertilizers for the corn, made from petroleum, is subsidized by the taxpayers;
Even McD's advertising is subsidized by the taxpayers.

If all these subsidies were discontinued, folks wouldn't be able to afford a McD's hamburger.

Why are we subsidizing a unhealthy product, anyway?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

33. Not sure where you're going with this

I suppose no one will be eating anything healthy or unhealthy at that rate.

[KansDem]

42. Just that I'm getting tired of hearing about the "evils of government"

...from groups like ranchers and farmers and industries that manufacture fertilizers... They all depend on government subsidies!

And from the very corporations that rely on government assistance to stay in business, like McD's.

Consider the salary of its CEO, Jim Skinner:
McDonald's CEO's $17 Million Pay Tied to Performance

If customers had to pay the McD's hamburger real costs, they couldn't afford it...

So why are we subsidizing a 17-million dollar salary for the CEO of McD's for manufacturing unhealthy food? Not to mention McD's "welfare recipients"--the investors.

Doesn't make sense...

[RobinA]

85. In My Family

I tend to here about the evils of government from pilots. :rofl:

[FailureToCommunicate]

21. I actually chatted with a MickyD executive once and asked my burning question:

Why, oh why doesn't McDonald's offer that OTHER all american icon, the Hot Dog for sale. She said that they HAD considered it, but that marketing and focus groups had assured them that the corporation would be perceived as offering a food item that was generally considered junk food and unhealthy! I waited for her to see the irony of that conclusion - or to break a smile. When she didn't, I decided not to pursue the matter.

Personally, I, eh, cherish the toys we were presented when we ate there years ago (on the road, when there was no other choice)
In fact I think we have a box of that junk in the basement (saved for when they become collectables?)

[KurtNYC]

68. Hot dogs ARE far worse than hamburgers

and IMHO contributed to the early death of Patrick Swayze and many other Americans. Hot dogs, bacon and other processed meats increase pancreatic cancer by 67%.

The worst thing on the plate in fast food is the french fries (saturated fat). A burger, especially without cheese, is acceptable nutrition.

[sarcasmo]

23. self delete.

[AlbertCat]

25. Way to many lawyers in this country.

To their what.... hearts?

Oh you mean "too many".

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

26. She should sue Mother Nature for making her an idiot

And a pushover.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

54. LOL!

:rofl:

[truthisfreedom]

28. I hope the lawyer's being paid up front!

I dont see any merit.

[Kablooie]

31. Geez. This is the kind of flakey thing that give liberals a bad image.

McDonald's has a right to sell their product and parents have a responsibility to prevent their children from consuming products they don't want.
I have to agree with some conservatives on this. Parents have responsibilities and can't expect the government to to order corporations to make those decisions for you.

If McD claimed a happy meal makes you jump higher, run farther and hit puberty earlier there might be a case, but just advertising that they sell it and it comes with a toy is accurate so there is no basis for a lawsuit.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

32. Who knows if the mother is a liberal?

She's probably just someone looking for a pay day.

[Kablooie]

39. You may be right but we will get the blame anyway.

[IamK]

41. I doubt she is a dittohead... Bio Below

Name: Monet Parham-Lee, MPH
Title: Regional Program Manager
Organization: Network for a Healthy California, CA Dept. of Public Health
Address:1616 Capitol Ave
City: Sacramento State: CA Zip Code:95814
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Monet Parham-Lee serves has a Regional Program Manager within the Network for a Healthy California; a program of the California Department of Public Health funded by the USDA-Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly the Food Stamp Program). She spends most of her time at the Network providing consultation, technical assistance and on-going support for the Regional Networks which facilitate the full integration of a variety of State Network-level functions on the regional level, bringing services and support closer to Network-funded projects and partners serving the low income audience. Ms. Parham-Lee also serves as the Network's lead staff person on early childhood matters, working closely with several Network funded Statewide Leadership Projects focused on early nutrition and physical activity. Prior to joining the Network, she worked in a variety of health services, childrens services, and public health programs at the State-level, as well as with the Greater Sacramento Urban League.

[KurtNYC]

69. Oooooh ...research ! You waited 15 seconds before forming a

strong opinion; how unique. Welcome to DU!

You should btw show a link for copied content.

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2010/12/monet-parham

[HockeyMom]

36. Moderation

Never say NEVER, We knew parents who said NEVER to candy. Yes, that is their right, but what will be the results? In the boy we knew, he became OBSESSED with candy. He would sneak it, steal it, "buy" (from friends) every chance he got. Maybe if his parents didn't ban it totally, it would not be such a big deal to him?

Growing up, my Mom was constantly baking/making cookies and candies. I grew up not thinking it was any big deal and actually almost never ate it and still don't. I let my own kids growing up have it in moderation, and it was no big deal to them either, and not now as adults. I took the same approach with McD's also. The toys weren't that much of a big deal either.

[IamK]

38. her kid will be warped....

[The Straight Story]

43. She should be banned from raising kids, because she obviously has issues rasining them

"said she was bringing the case because of the constant requests for McDonald's Happy Meals."

She can't possibly believe this - if this is not from the onion, then she is truly disturbed and I feel sad for her kids.

[Taverner]

44. Aw man this behavior makes me long for tort reform.

And if the Republicans played ball with us on HC, they could have had this

But they had to be assholes

[Poll_Blind]

45. This whole article aside, Americans have little idea just how bad stuff like McDonalds really IS.

Again, this article is this article and there's a whole bunch of aspects of it that I neither have the time or inclination to go into. But one thought, which I think people who have strong reactions to this article might possibly agree on is that Americans, overall, have a very low consciousness of exactly how bad fast food, like McDonalds, is for their bodies.

I recommend seeing Super Size Me, if you haven't. It's probably the most entertaining way to learn some, especially from a medical perspective, important things about just how bad junk food can be for you. Even one "meal" consisting of a burger, coke and some fries. I think the word "junk" is probably too kind a word to describe what many of us consider a sort of informal American institution: Fast Food.

This isn't just limited to McDonalds of course, but many of the fast food chains but also many of the chain restaurants, which also feed us delicious but sometimes exceedingly poor quality and unhealthy food.

Shit, even the word "unhealthy" is a little tame to describe the combinations of chemicals, the machine-extracted meats, and so forth which all get served up, with a straight face, as something for a human being to eat.

Americans aren't really aware of just how bad it is.

PB

[Turborama]

52. I concur on your recommendation to watch "Super Size Me" & add Food Inc. to watch in conjunction n/t

[totodeinhere]

101. The guy in "Super Size Me" ate every meal there for a whole month.

If anyone eats exclusively at McDonald's then they need to get a life. Personally, I have an occasional meal there, probably four or five times per year. And in no way has it impacted my health. I am not obese and I am healthy. People have got to exercise a bit of common sense. Don't eat there all the time but an occasional meal there probably won't hurt you. And would it be fair to close down McDonald's (I know you did not advocate that) just because some people cannot control their diet and deny those of us who can the right to enjoy an occasional guilty please meal there? I don't think so.

[ejpoeta]

121. there are people who eat at fast food places all the time. me i hate those places.

i go once in awhile after i forget why. then i get the mcstomach ache and it all comes back to me. if i do go there it is most likely because they have the drive thru and i feel i must feed the kids something. but i detest those places and avoid them in most cases. i do believe that occasional eating there is fine. it's when people are going there every day because they are too tired to cook and i can't say as i blame them. i think they could find alternatives. i love the crock pot myself. but i am a stay at home mom. we try to eat out no more than once a week and of that once a week i'd say maybe once a month we go to a fast food place. and i agree that there is far too little exercise and emphasis on exercise. i can say i have been terrible with that myself. but i don't blame anyone else for that. that is all me.

[Turborama]

131. It wasn't just about that. Spurlock covered three different school lunch programs:

1. One where the meals come from a fast food-type supplier.

Here he indicates that the school staff’s logic is to turn a blind eye and hope for the best. When a students’ self-selected meal consists of nothing but candy and chips, the cafeteria worker rationalizes that the child also brought a bag lunch: wrong.

2. One where the meals come from a gov’t sponsored program.

We’re all familiar with this: Everything comes out of a box or can. Real healthy.

3. One school stumbled across a supplier (Natural Ovens) that actually delivers fresh, healthy food for about the same cost as the junk offered by the above two.

The third school above is actually a school for “troublemaker” kids. Once the school meals were switched from fat and sugar infested junk to the healthy, fresh food the dean stated that behavior problems went down to almost zero.

Synopsis from http://screenrant.com/review-super-size-me-vic-204/">here, because it's been a while since I saw it. I do remember him saying that they spend more money on prison food than they do on school food, though.

Interview with Spurlock about kids' meals: http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/chat/chat132.shtml

[ejpoeta]

119. we saw that. it was eye opening to say the least!! a perfectly healthy fit man

ends up almost in liver failure!! i highly recommend that movie.

[EFerrari]

47. Does anyone think that McD's (or anyone else) would bother

to market to children if it didn't work?

We're 'way behind other developed nations in regulating how these corporate creeps use our kids to line their pockets. And please don't tell me it's the parents' fault. Unless you live with your kid in a cave until they move out, they are going to be pressured in all kinds of ways, when they're with you and when they are not with you. Most kids' day is a walk from brand to brand. Even materials used in schools come branded.

[Frank Booth]

48. Simply ridiculous.

[elias7]

49. Why pick on McDonalds?

Ban all advertising on TV, in stores, in magazines, on the internets. Ban Christmas, one of the worst offenders to the persuasive intent of marketing.

While we're at it, lets ban frying at home, as well as eggs, sausage, bacon, cheese, ground beef, breaded chicken and fish, salads and all the other things on McD's menu that we eat at home.

[JackRiddler]

59. Advertising during children's shows has been banned in Sweden for many years.

They are no less free as a result. They understand that children should not be subject to predatory marketing. This has nothing to do with free-will choices. Three-year-olds don't get to make those.

[elias7]

50. Is what many folks make at home healthier than this?

Chicken Nuggets
190 cal, 12 g fat, 3 g sat fat, 0 trans fat

Apple Slices with Low Fat Caramel Dip
35 cal, 0 fat

Apple Juice

This is my daughter's happy meal, which we get maybe twice a year (only when traveling)

[JackRiddler]

58. Why not give McDonald's custody of the children?

Your point about whether some parents cook even worse food for their children at home than the junk McDonald's sells couldn't be more irrelevant.

This is about whether McDonald's and other advertisers get to invade the head space of children and entice them with toys and clowns into wanting to eat crap for the rest of their lives. In effect, they are trying to enter the home and take partial custody.

Should advertisers be allowed to target children? Do you care to argue they do so in the interests of children?

[elias7]

130. Thanks for calling my point irrelevant

My point was a tangent off the OP and meant to question the blanket assumption of McDonald's being "junk food". Their website posts all the nutrition info, where they buy their food from, and the menu has altered and expanded over the years to diminish the "junk" content and offer healthy choices. You can snark back at me if you like, but it is true.

My previous post was on point. When you ask should advertisers be allowed to target children, I would submit that our entire culture is consumer oriented and driven by marketing, advertising, titillation, and manipulation from the day we are born to the day we die. I merely asked why we are picking on McDonald's, when invading the head space of children, teens and adults is so pervasive on almost any level I can think of.

[24601]

63. Yes from now on, "Happy" is out and the upper limit will be only

"Moderately Content" meals.

[Creative]

64. And the assault on free commerce continues...

Doesn't McDonald's realize that their food is not conducive to California's theory of the master race?

[raccoon]

67. But will we ever hear the outcome of this suit? nt

[mwooldri]

70. Most McDonalds franchises I know will happily sell the toys without the meal.

Unless there's instructions from corporate not to, of course.

Plus McDonalds have better choices these days - a grilled chicken wrap, sliced applies and a reduced fat milk jug... sounds like a not-too-bad Happy Meal to me.

Mark.

[ileus]

73. What a bunch of ID10TS

[brendan120678]

76. "Happy Meals toys constitute a method of circumventing parental control"

:wtf:

Saying "no" doesn't work anymore??

[snooper2]

77. google image search for Monet Parham

And here is the first image :rofl:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:pYHF7hkfuk_CPM:&t=1


She DOES look serious about this though :P

[and-justice-for-all]

79. Marketing companies do target children...

they use the 'nag factor', which is to get kids to pester their parents enough so they can get what they want, and most of the time to parents will give in. So for companies to manipulate children in order to sell them crap that they do not need or food they need not eat, is rather revolting.

To me, the peddlers of bad food, especially to children, is no different than a crack dealer or a meth pushers.

[Mz Pip]

86. I guess it's just too hard

for parents to call their kids on their nagging and whining. Parents shouldn't have to be put in the position of having to deal with whining. Parenting should be made as easy as possible. Got it. :eyes:

And comparing a stupid McDonald's ad to a meth dealer is ludicrous hyperbole. An occasional Happy Meal isn't going to kill you, nor will it lead to a horrendous and life endangering addiction. Haven't heard of anyone getting busted for robbery to feed a Happy Meal addiction.

[and-justice-for-all]

114. I kindly disagree,...but thanks..nt

[MadHound]

82. A parent suing because she can't say "no" to her kids.

Suing because she is a bad, ineffective parent, how sad.

[JackRiddler]

99. Here's another one who may not answer the question: Do you have kids?

Do you deal with kids?

Do you think it's all right for advertisers of predatory corporations to attempt to capture the minds of children, whether or not their parents allow it?

Do you think McDonald's should have joint custody of your children?

[totodeinhere]

103. Most TV's have V chips nowadays. You can use it to block programs that advertise to children.

That seems to me to be a logical strategy to follow.

[MadHound]

107. No, I don't have kids. Yes, I deal with kids.

I'm a teacher. I've worked in children's shelters. A good part of my professional life has been being a surrogate parent to one extent or another.

As such, as a parent, as the authority figure, you have to learn how to say "no".

Yes, lots of advertising is directed at kids. Toys, food, clothing, you name it. This advertising is designed either to get kid's dollars directly, or to have the kids hound their parents to pay for the item. That is where you, as the parent, come in. That is when you make the judgement and if, in your opinion, the kid shouldn't have the item, you say no. If the kid continues to hound you, lay out the consequences to the kid for continuing the action. Then enforce those consequences. This is called parenting, when did adults forget how to do that?

The only way McD's or any other corporation gets joint custody of your kids is if you don't learn how to say no.

But apparently we have a generation of parents, at least some of them, who can't say no to their own kid, so now they want the court to intervene. Fucking ridiculous.

Oh, one other thing, if you don't teach your kid about what the word no means when they're young, when you don't allow them to eat a Happy Meal, then they won't know what the word no means when they are adults. The consequences of not learning that lesson when they're young are all around us. That's why you, as the parent, teach your kid what no is. Think of McD's as a learning opportunity about the word no.

[MikeW]

110. I'll answer your stupid question

Yea I do 3 as a matter of fact.

All good kids.

All respect their parents and the word NO and when they dont they ALSO know there will be consequences to their choices.

[AngryOldDem]

133. Yes, I have kids.

And when they became aware of Happy Meals and the crappy toys that came with them, they also became aware that they would not get the Happy Meals nor the crappy toys when we (on rare occasion) went there. They accepted my authority as Mom on this, and never once argued with me about it. And that has more or less extended to whatever else shit the media and advertisers have tried to force-feed us.

The only way ANY corporate entity gets "custody" of one's kids is if the parent caves into the pressure and allows it.

Again, this suit is a prime example of parents not wanting to do the basics of their job: Namely, being the adults in the equation and saying no.

[goddess40]

88. can you say Frivolous lawsuit

Someone needs to get a life.

[rayofreason]

108. Dishonest tool.

Who is "Monet Parham?"

Google her and you find this

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2010/12/monet-parham

It is like an anti-smoking advocate claiming that her smoking is causing her health problems because of second-hand smoke.

[alp227]

137. c'mon she's a PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCATE

that's what i get from reading the link. what's wrong with that? Rick Berman (fast-food lobbyist and defender of right-wing causes like ACORN-bashing etc.) on the other hand...

[TARAmisu80]

120. WHAT CRAP!

She cannot handle her kids screaming that they want Mcdonald's when she tells them no??? My daughter has a hissy with it and I stopped giving in! She needs to just deal with it, grow some cajones and tell her kids no- she needs to be a PARENT! She doesn't sue the commercials for the new bikes or the other fast food places with toys like burger king or wendys or taco bell, etc! She's lookin for money! Forget her!!!

[whogasa736]

124. Send those poor deprived children to

Hooters

[fasttense]

125. Deleted, wrong topic. n/t

[Turborama]

135. I can't believe the amount of support McDonald's is getting in this thread

Please read: http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/index.html

http://www.mcspotlight.org/

[davidthegnome]

138. Huh

It seems that some people are suggesting happy meals should not be advertised at all because they are unhealthy. The same could be said of various drinks, foods and products that I have yet to see anyone complaining about or filing a suit in regards to.

I don't think it's our business or the business of government to tell people what to eat or what not to eat. In the case of children - well, that's a matter of parental judgment. If we are to start regulating what may be advertised in regards to food, the next step would be to start regulating what may be legally served or eaten. It is, to my mind, a slippery slope.

As for the lawsuit... well DUH, of course they're going to advertise their products, healthy or not. Of course they'll advertise the toys as a selling point. Children 8 and younger do not have the cognitive skills and developmental maturity to understand the persuasive intent of marketing and advertising - but their parents definitely should.

Overall, another ridiculous suit in the land of ridiculous suits.

[jmowreader]

139. I knew it...

When I saw the thread title, I immediately thought, "the Center for Science in the Public Interest is behind this." And lo and behold, there they are.