McDonald's says no to kids' health

printer friendlyprinter friendly

Last year, San Francisco passed a groundbreaking ordinance to require restaurants offering free toys in kids' meals to make sure that those meals met certain minimum -- and very reasonable -- nutrition requirements. Now, McDonald's has decided to sidestep the law and charge a dime for each of its Happy Meal toys so that it doesn't have to make the meals any healthier (read: less bad) for kids. The kicker: They're painting this as an act of charity and donating those dimes to the local Ronald McDonald House.

Lawyer and writer Michele Simon has taken the food giant to task for this stunt and questioned whether the 10-cent toy gimmick really is in full compliance with the law. And good for her for doing so. After all, this law was designed specifically to "disassociate toys from unhealthy food," as Simon put it.

But what if McDonald's is in full compliance? Then what? Are they in the clear? Do they get to go on with business as usual?

Hardly. Pressure is on from parents and advocates everywhere. They are holding McDonald's and other food and beverage companies responsible for the health harms that their products cause. Why? Because we have a health crisis in this country and food companies are unwilling to reign in their junk food marketing to help abate it. So, whether McDonald's actions are legal are not, the real issue here -- children's health -- should not get lost in the conversation.

Even as childhood obesity rates and related health problems continue to climb, McDonald's and other companies seem as insistent as ever on circumventing parents and marketing high-calorie, low-nutrition food and drinks to young kids. Research from Yale's Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity has showed that McDonald's is using online marketing to attract children and teens. And numerous case studies -- compiled by BMSG in partnership with the Center for Digital Democracy and National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity -- show that McDonald's is among many companies that use aggressive digital marketing to target youth and get them to engage and bond with brands.

What does all of this mean? First, it reaffirms what so many already know: that advocates, parents, policymakers and health professionals of all stripes have their work cut out for them. Big Food's gloves are off, and it will take continued action on the part of all of these groups to chip away at the power that allows them to continually flout health.

Second, it means that food and beverage companies have their work cut out for them too. Michele Simon is just one of many heavyweights in the public health arena who -- I think it's safe to say -- is not about to let Big Food off the hook. Every Happy Meal-type shenanigan just emboldens those who care about public health even more. And the general public is growing impatient with seeing such institutions flex disproportionate amounts of power in ways that hurt society collectively. The resilience and tenacity of the Occupy movement speak to this. When people band together in the name of a shared goal and decide they've had enough of something, history shows the underdog can absolutely prevail. Public health and community groups have proven this with tobacco, with childhood lead poisoning, with seat belt laws, etc. -- and we're adding the food environment to that list.


nanny state (2) suicide barrier (2) equity (3) childhood obestiy conference (1) Nickelodeon (1) messaging (3) tobacco control (2) breastfeeding (3) gender (1) Marion Nestle (1) weight of the nation (1) mental health (2) naacp (1) Black Lives Matter (1) Proposition 47 (1) paula deen (1) SB 1000 (1) Donald Trump (2) race (1) campaign finance (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) sandusky (2) reproductive justice (1) food marketing (3) Whiteclay (4) news strategy (1) junk food (2) Aurora (1) digital marketing (2) cigarette advertising (1) Bloomberg (3) advocacy (3) soda warning labels (1) abortion (1) PepsiCo (1) adverse childhood experiences (3) election 2016 (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) new year's resolutions (1) Rachel Grana (1) snap (1) junk food marketing (3) autism (1) auto safety (1) white house (1) measure N (2) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) social media (2) sexual violence (2) media (7) news (2) food deserts (1) built environment (2) sugary drinks (10) elephant triggers (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) Oglala Sioux (3) public health policy (2) media advocacy (21) inequities (1) obesity prevention (1) government intrusion (1) Twitter (1) Joe Paterno (1) food access (1) HPV vaccine (1) cosmetics (1) Big Soda (2) diabetes prevention (1) Merck (1) racism (1) Bill Cosby (1) health care (1) community (1) childhood adversity (1) personal responsibility (3) Twitter for advocacy (1) social change (1) Gardasil (1) sexual health (1) gun violence (1) news analysis (3) marketing (1) Measure O (1) language (6) Penn State (3) Sandy Hook (2) Telluride (1) Tea Party (1) california (1) youth (1) Michelle Obama (1) SSBs (1) world water day (1) community health (1) alcohol (5) Connecticut shooting (1) Texas (1) tobacco (5) tobacco industry (2) apha (2) Big Food (2) childhood trauma (3) summer camps (1) Richmond (5) water security (1) prison phone calls (1) soda taxes (2) Catholic church (1) San Francisco (3) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) community organizing (1) sexual assault (1) healthy eating (1) seat belt laws (1) FCC (1) communication (2) collaboration (1) media analysis (5) authentic voices (1) suicide prevention (2) SB 402 (1) online marketing (1) education (1) values (1) Wendy Davis (1) tobacco tax (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) sexism (2) front groups (1) Citizens United (1) food (1) default frame (1) news coverage (1) vaccines (1) child sexual abuse (5) food swamps (1) prison system (1) El Monte (3) Happy Meals (1) cervical cancer (1) Chile (1) cap the tap (1) Proposition 29 (1) food industry (4) environmental health (1) journalism (1) product safety (1) emergency contraception (1) community safety (1) privilege (1) gun control (2) chronic disease (2) social justice (1) ACEs (2) American Beverage Association (1) soda industry (4) soda tax (11) diabetes (1) institutional accountability (1) soda (12) Colorado (1) food and beverage marketing (3) regulation (2) suicide nets (1) sanitation (1) filibuster (1) Let's Move (1) genital warts (1) public health data (1) framing (14) ssb (1) industry appeals to choice (1) cancer research (1) media bites (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) Golden Gate Bridge (2) structural racism (1) obesity (10) corporate social responsibility (1) Sam Kass (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) children's health (3) safety (1) choice (1) political correctness (1) sports drinks (1) liana winett (1) target marketing (7) social math (1) democracy (1) community violence (1) women's health (2) Big Tobacco (3) Berkeley (2) violence (2) news monitoring (1) beverage industry (2) prevention (1) physical activity (1) gatorade bolt game (1) Coca-Cola (3) paper tigers (1) Amanda Fallin (1) SB-5 (1) water (1) childhood obesity (1) McDonald's (1) indoor smoking ban (1) Newtown (1) cancer prevention (1) george lakoff (1) health equity (10) public health (67) Johnson & Johnson (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) Dora the Explorer (1) food justice (1) beauty products (1) violence prevention (8) food environment (1) stigma (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: