Posts Tagged ‘McDonald’s’

Happy Meal Lawsuit Update: Is McDonald’s Playing Games with Nutrition Facts?

Posted on Monday, July 12th, 2010 by Michele Simon

Last week I blogged about how the Center for Public Interest (CSPI) is threatening a lawsuit against McDonald’s for using toys to promote Happy Meals to kids. Since then, McDonald’s has responded, sort of. In a letter apparently fed to the press even before CSPI got to see it, McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner attempts to “set the record straight:”

We have a long history of working with responsible NGOs who are interested in serious dialogue and meaningful engagement; and we are open to constructive feedback.

Really? Like how McDonald’s worked with those two activists in the UK by suing them for libel in the 1990s for putting out a simple brochure? The case (dubbed McLibel) spawned a book and a movie and became notorious for being the longest English trial ever, not to mention the stupidest public relations move short of New Coke.

Skinner continues to dig his own grave:

Ronald McDonald also serves as an ambassador for children’s well-being, promoting messages around physical activity and living a balanced, active lifestyle.

Right. That must explain why an entire campaign was launched in March by Corporate Accountability International to Retire Ronald based on an investigation that showed how the clown’s main job is to promote McDonald’s unhealthy foods, in schools and just about anywhere children can be found.

And finally, Skinner asserts the company has “more choice and variety than ever before” in Happy Meals, and:

Furthermore, McDonald’s makes available in-depth, comprehensive nutrition information about our food to give parents the support they need to make appropriate choices for their children.

OK, now this is kind of true, and is where things get interesting. It appears that McDonald’s has already changed the nutrition facts on its website for Happy Meals. But only some Happy Meals, the ones that come with “Apple Dippers,” the healthy alternative to French fries.

In its June 22 press release about the potential lawsuit, CSPI complained that:

Of the 24 possible Happy Meal combinations that McDonald’s describes on its website, all exceed 430 calories (430 is one-third of the 1,300- calorie recommended daily intake for children 4 to 8 years old).

In documents provided by CSPI, here is what the nutrition listing looked like on the McDonald’s website as of June 15. If you compare these figures to this listing, which says is effective as of June 25, just 3 days after CSPI’s news release about the lawsuit, you will see for each of the Happy Meals that come with Apple Dippers, the number of calories has been reduced by exactly 70.

Could that be because McDonald’s has decided not to include the caramel dipping sauce in the total? Who knows? Any clever nutritionists out there want to help?

Not that this re-do really helps McDonald’s all that much, given that it only makes three of the 12 Happy Meal combinations with Apple Dippers below the 430 calorie level that CSPI says should be the cut-off. (And of course, all the others are still way over 430.) Never mind, CEO Jim Skinner has a retort to CSPI on that too:

On this point, it seems that you purposefully skewed your evaluation of our Happy Meals by putting them in the context of a highly conservative 1,300 calorie per day requirement. I’m sure you know this category generally applies to the youngest and most sedentary children.

The youngest? Ages 4-8 seems to fit squarely into McDonald’s Happy Meal demographic. The most sedentary? So now McDonald’s is saying as long as kids hop on the treadmill, Happy Meals full of chicken nuggets, fries, and soda is A-OK? You won’t find a health professional (not on Big Food’s payroll) to go along with that idea.

Also, as CSPI also pointed out, in 2007, McDonald’s pledged not to advertise to children meals that have more than 600 calories, and even with the revised calorie listings, 4 of the 24 combinations are still in violation of that pledge. Whatever the calories, it appears McDonald’s is headed to court. Here is Steve Gardner, CSPI’s litigation director, in response to the McDonald’s letter:

We’re encouraged to read that McDonald’s is signaling a willingness to make changes that are in the best interests of its customers. We hope that McDonald’s takes us up on our offer to negotiate an end to the practice of using toys to market unhealthful foods directly to children. If it doesn’t, that will all but guarantee that we will have to resort to litigation.

Stay tuned.

Update: Reporter Melanie Warner called McDonald’s to get an explanation for the calorie change. A spokesperson claimed they were just correcting a mistake. You can read her take at BNET.

Posted in Child Nutrition | Tagged: , , | Michele on Google+ | View/Add Comments (3) |

McDonald’s Facing Potential Lawsuit for Luring Kids With Happy Meal Toys – It’s About Time

Posted on Monday, July 5th, 2010 by Michele Simon

It was only a matter of time. Last month, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) served McDonald’s with a notice of its intent to sue if the fast food giant continues to use toys to promote Happy Meals. (An “intent to sue” letter is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit in some states.) The basis for the potential case is that using toys to market to small children is unfair and deceptive under the consumer protection laws in a number of states. According to CSPI’s letter, McDonald’s toy promotions violate the laws of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Texas, and the District of Columbia. 
CSPI’s litigation director Stephen Gardner explained in a statement that “McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to our children. McDonald’s use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children’s developmental immaturity.”
The letter more specifically spells out the legal basis for the case:

McDonald’s practices are predatory and wrong. They are also illegal, because marketing to kids under eight is (1) inherently deceptive, because young kids are not developmentally advanced enough to understand the persuasive intent of marketing; and (2) unfair to parents, because marketing to children undermines parental authority and interferes with their ability to raise healthy children.

This is important because CSPI is saying that McDonald’s practices are both deceptive to children and unfair to parents, the latter to deflect the argument that it’s really all the parents’ fault. For that perspective, CSPI’s press release quotes Sheila Nesbitt of Minnesota, a parent of a six-year-old boy and a three-year-old girl:

McDonald’s makes my job as a parent more difficult. They market cheap toys that appeal to kids and it works. My kids always want to go to McDonald’s because of the toys. I try my best to educate my kids about healthy eating but it’s hard when I am competing against the allure of a new Shrek toy.

According to a CSPI study, despite McDonald’s recent attempts at healthwashing Happy Meals with Apple Dippers and milk, French fries come with Happy Meals 93 percent of the time. The letter also explains the harm that Happy Meals cause:

McDonald’s practice of dangling toys in front of children is illegal, regardless of what meal the child eventually gets. Not only does the practice mobilize “pester power,” but it also imprints on developing minds brand loyalty for McDonald’s. Because most of the company’s options are of poor nutritional quality, eating Happy Meals promotes eating habits that are virtually assured to undermine children’s health.

Next, the letter explains how voluntary, self-regulation by industry has been a dismal failure:

Through the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, McDonald’s pledged to advertise only Happy Meals that meet McDonald’s nutrition standards for children. However, that pledge fails to address McDonald’s insidious use of toys to market its products to children. Regardless of the Happy Meal combinations shown in advertising, the vast majority of possible Happy Meals are nutritionally inappropriate for children.

This is important because (as documented in my book, Appetite for Profit) McDonald’s, along with every other major food company, has been hiding behind the veil of self-regulation of marketing to children for years. And sadly, the federal government has so far been going along with the charade. This lawsuit could become one way to expose this ruse, and even lay the groundwork for changing the laws to protect children. Because companies fear lawsuits even more than they fear regulation, the case could be a game-changer.

McDonald’s response in the press has been to defend the Happy Meal, not surprisingly. William Whitman, vice president of communications for McDonald’s USA, told Nation’s Restaurant News: “We are proud of our Happy Meal, which gives our customers wholesome food and toys of the highest quality and safety. Getting a toy is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald’s.”
It’s all fun until someone gets hurt. Chicken McNuggets are wholesome? Here are the ingredients, as listed on McDonald’s own website:  

White boneless chicken, water, food starch-modified, salt, seasoning (autolyzed yeast extract, salt, wheat starch, natural flavoring (botanical source), safflower oil, dextrose, citric acid, rosemary), sodium phosphates, seasoning (canola oil, mono- and diglycerides, extractives of rosemary). Battered and breaded with: water, enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), yellow corn flour, food starch-modified, salt, leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, calcium lactate), spices, wheat starch, whey, corn starch. Prepared in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness). Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent.

That last ingredient sounds especially wholesome.

Toys of the highest quality and safety, like those toxic Shrek glasses?

As I wrote about here in April, the Santa Clara County, Calif., Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance to stop chain restaurants from using toys or other kid-oriented incentives to market unhealthy meals. This case is a logical next step and is certainly more efficient than going county by county to get fast food chains to halt this insidious practice. Of course, this case will only be about McDonald’s, for now. Other food chains (think Burger King) that don’t want to be next may be forced to re-think their kids marketing practices as well.

Of course, already the potential case is already being attacked by those who say it’s all up to parents. CSPI’s executive director Michael Jacobson responds to the parental argument this way: 

I’m sure that industry’s defenders will blame parents for not saying ‘no’ to their children. Parents do bear much of the responsibility, but multi-billion-dollar corporations make parents’ job nearly impossible by giving away toys and bombarding kids with slick advertising.

So will this case mean the end of all toys in Happy Meals or will CSPI settle for McDonald’s setting nutrition standards on those meals the company markets with toys? CSPI’s not saying, but Michael Jacobson did say in the press release that “regardless of the nutritional quality of what’s being sold, the practice of tempting kids with toys is inherently deceptive.” I couldn’t agree more. 
McDonald’s has 30 days (from June 22) to stop marketing with toys before a case is filed. I asked Steve Gardner today if he’s heard back from McDonald’s yet and here’s what he said: 

We’ve gotten an acknowledgment from McDonald’s that they got the letter, but no response to the suggestion that we discuss before suit is filed. One thing is certain: if McDonald’s chooses not to negotiate, we will sue.

And that’s when things will get interesting. For those who think lawsuits are too extreme, consider this: We have only three branches of government, and two have been failing us for too long. The executive branch, even with Obama at the helm, has shown little interest in fixing the problem of junk food marketing to children. And the legislative branch (aka Congress) has been bought out by corporate interests for decades. That leaves only the judicial branch, which is why this case make sense, and why it was only a matter of time until someone sued over this issue.

Meantime, you can take action by sending an email message to McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner asking the company to stop marketing toys to kids. You can also join a related campaign by Corporate Accountability International asking McDonald’s to Retire Ronald.

Posted in Child Nutrition | Tagged: , | Michele on Google+ | View/Add Comments (5) |

Santa Clara County Begins the Fast Food Toy Rebellion – Parents Rejoice!

Posted on Friday, April 30th, 2010 by Michele Simon

Any parent who has ever driven by a McDonald’s with little ones in the back seat knows how hard it can be to resist the lobbying, often made even worse due to the marketing of toys with Happy Meals. And of course, other fast food chains also lure kids in with the latest installment of some toy series, often tied to the latest blockbuster movie. 
I’ve been saying for years that it’s only a matter of time until some city or county figures out that a simple change in law is all that’s needed to make such promotions illegal at the local level. (Localities have tremendous public health authority that is often underutilized.) On Tuesday, it finally happened, and I am proud to say, in a county in my home state of California.

Yesterday, I posted the press release from Santa Clara County Supervisor (and Board President) Ken Yeager’s office celebrating the passage of an ordinance that limits to use of toys and other incentives to fast food that meet certain nutrition criteria. As Supervisor Yeager put it: 

This ordinance levels the playing field. It helps parents make the choices they want for their children without toys and other freebies luring them toward food that fails to meet basic nutritional standards.

There’s no doubt that luring kids with toys works. The Federal Trade Commission estimated that restaurants sold 1.2 billion meals accompanied by toys to children under 12 in 2006 alone. Further, a 2008 study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest identified 12 restaurants with kids’ meal offerings that routinely exceed the recommended caloric limits for children.  Ten out of 12 of those restaurants offer toys with their kids’ meals.
Now, let’s look at the details of this law, since that often gets lost on the press. It’s not just about toys, it’s about a number of “incentives” and here is how that word is defined:

any toy, game, trading card, admission ticket or other consumer product, whether physical or digital…or any coupon, voucher, ticket, token, code, or password redeemable for or granting digital or other access to [those items previously mentioned.]

And here are some of the nutrition standards that limit the use of such incentives:

More than two hundred (200) calories for a Single Food Item, or more than four-hundred eighty-five (485) calories for a Meal;
More than four-hundred and eighty milligrams (480 mg) of sodium for a Single Food Item, or more than six hundred milligrams (600 mg) of sodium for a Meal;
More than thirty-five percent (35%) of total calories from fat. 

Now I don’t think that toys should ever be used as food incentives, regardless of the nutrition standards, and I am concerned about the message that fast food companies should market “healthy food” to kids, but this is a still good start and we have to start somewhere.
So how important is this new law, given that it only applies to the unincorporated areas of one county? I can almost hear the shrugged shoulders and people saying, there goes California again, that wacky state. While Santa Clara County may be just an hour south of San Francisco, and is known for being out in front when it comes to public health, with increasing recognition of the health problems related to childhood obesity and poor eating habits in general, we are probably seeing the beginning of the end for fast food companies using toys to hook kids.
First of all, Santa Clara County was also a leader on menu labeling, along with San Francisco. That idea then trickled up to Sacramento, and California became the first state to enact a similar law. And recently, a federal law passed requiring restaurant chains to post basic nutrition information.
Also, Santa Clara is the home of San Jose, the third largest city in California with more than 7 million residents. While this ordinance does not cover San Jose (due to jurisdictional limitations), if the city council takes up the issue there, it would have a huge impact. Meanwhile other cities known for cutting-edge food policies such as San Francisco and New York, are taking notice. Anyone could be next, and of course, it’s just this domino effect that scares the pants off of Ronald McDonald.
So what happens now? Just like they did with the menu labeling ordinance, it seems likely that the restaurant industry will file a lawsuit, if for no other reason than to scare other cities and counties away from enacting similar bills. Industry could try to challenge the law on First Amendment grounds, but targeting small children with toys and fast food does not exactly sound like protected free speech. 
Indeed, I asked the Santa Clara County Counsel’s office if they expect a lawsuit, and here is what Acting County Counsel Miguel Marquez told me today: 

I wouldn’t be surprised if the restaurant industry sued the County, but we are confident that any case they bring would be unsuccessful. The California Restaurant Association asserted First Amendment challenges to the menu labeling requirements Santa Clara County (and other localities) adopted two years ago, but they now tout menu labeling as an important service they provide to their customers. We hope the restaurant industry would instead put its resources into designing effective ways to promote healthy eating for children.

So just like with menu labeling, a lawsuit is likely to just be a temporary setback. And, by way of responding to those who might think the County has over-reached, he added: 

Local government plays an important role in advancing public health. The restaurant industry often works against parents by luring children into developing a taste for unhealthy foods.

Amen. We need more local leadership like that being displayed by Santa Clara. It’s only a matter of time before McDonald’s and friends sees the writing on the wall and realizes they will have to stop this insidious marketing strategy or risk very bad public relations. And when they do, industry is sure to take all the credit, claim to be responsible corporate partners, and act like they planned it all along.
You can read the full text of the law here and for good local coverage, see the San Jose Mercury News.

Posted in Child Nutrition | Tagged: , , , | Michele on Google+ | View/Add Comments (31) |

Why it’s Time to Retire Ronald McDonald – my media statement

Posted on Thursday, April 1st, 2010 by Michele Simon

Here is what I said at yesterday’s press conference / retirement party for Ronald McDonald:
We know Ronald McDonald is everywhere, especially where ever kids are. Why target kids? For starters, children under age twelve command up to $50 billion in direct purchasing power, and influence $670 billion in family purchases.

And McDonald’s knows that vulnerable children are the perfect advertising audience, since they don’t even know they’re being marketed to. Children under the age of eight do not have the cognitive capacity to understand that Ronald is trying to sell them something; they just know they love the friendly clown.
 

The American Academy of Pediatrics says that “advertising directed toward children is inherently deceptive and exploits children under eight years of age.”
 
The First Amendment, which marketers often try to hide behind, does not protect deceptive advertising, which means McDonald’s is on treacherous legal ground and it’s only a matter of time before the law catches up to Ronald.
 
McDonald’s knows that brand loyalties established in childhood last a lifetime. Get them while they are young, and you’ve got them hooked for life.
 
But children aren’t just little adults. Their minds are still forming, making them especially vulnerable to the manipulations of marketing, and of course, their growing bodies need optimum nutrition, not Happy Meals.

But what about the parents, I hear all too often. After all, kids don’t drive themselves to McDonald’s or purchase those Happy Meals themselves. Any parent can tell you how difficult it is, after a long day at work, to resist the pestering, sometimes daily, by their children to take them to McDonald’s, usually just because of the lure of the toys, and of course, the clown.

And what better way to bypass parents and market directly to children than through a clown – the icon of circuses and children’s parties.

But parents have a right to raise their children in a safe environment, without constantly worrying about predatory corporate marketing. And children have the right not to be preyed upon by a clown with a corporate agenda. That’s why McDonald’s should retire Ronald.

Please visit: Retire Ronald to support this important campaign. Thank you.

Posted in Child Nutrition, Public Health | Tagged: | Michele on Google+ | View/Add Comments (0) |

Time to Retire Ronald McDonald

Posted on Wednesday, March 31st, 2010 by Michele Simon

Today, Corporate Accountability International is launching a campaign to ask McDonald’s to retire its child-exploiting mascot, Ronald, who for almost 50 years has been getting kids hooked on fast food. I am speaking at a press conference this morning at San Francisco City Hall, while another takes place in New York City, and events are being held at McDonald’s outlets around the nation to get the clown to step down. Read more about the campaign at RetireRonald.org, including poll results that show almost half of Americans agree that it’s time to retire Ronald. More to come.

Posted in Child Nutrition | Tagged: , | Michele on Google+ | View/Add Comments (4) |

Fast food race in China: Subway v. McDonalds

Posted on Friday, March 12th, 2010 by Michele Simon


As this March 8th Reuters article explains, fast food giant Subway, which currently has only 150 outlets in China compared to McDonald’s 2,000, aims to catch up to the golden arches within 10 years. And why not, with a population of 1.3 billion, China’s a potential goldmine for sub sales.

“Our biggest challenge is getting customers to try the product,” Subway President Fred DeLuca said, adding that they were considering lowering prices to attract more customers.

Yeah, that can be annoying, when people in foreign lands don’t understand your bastardized version of food. But the submarine research brain trust is on the job. The company is testing sandwiches such as Beijing roast duck and local sauces like “hot spicy Szechuan sauce.” Guess that makes it local.

Also, and without a hint of irony, DeLuca figures that Subway’s emphasis on “fresh eating and lots of vegetables” will help the chain grow as Chinese diners look for healthier options (compared to McDonald’s?), with the country becoming aware of obesity. “People are starting to understand there is a bit of a problem. This may match up with our growth trajectory and put us in a position where we can grow quite fast,” he said.

So let me get this straight: China had no obesity problem before Western-style fast food and a meat-centered diet was introduced (see T. Colin Campbell’s excellent book, The China Study) and now, it’s American fast food to the rescue? Oh right, that’s the company’s solution here at home too.

Posted in Big Food | Tagged: , | Michele on Google+ | View/Add Comments (2) |

Newer Entries »

Hot Topics