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.

cancer prevention (1) news monitoring (1) online marketing (1) SB 1000 (1) product safety (1) values (1) food marketing (5) equity (3) public health data (1) tobacco control (2) adverse childhood experiences (3) education (1) Marion Nestle (1) advocacy (3) white house (1) ssb (1) sandusky (2) Sandy Hook (2) physical activity (1) political correctness (1) alcohol (5) racism (1) SB 402 (1) paula deen (1) cancer research (1) Amanda Fallin (1) public health policy (2) Nickelodeon (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) apha (3) Let's Move (1) cap the tap (1) prison phone calls (1) junk food marketing (4) safety (1) world water day (1) youth (1) vaccines (1) seat belt laws (1) tobacco (5) food industry (4) prison system (1) framing (14) community violence (1) filibuster (1) childhood obesity (1) Big Soda (2) digital marketing (3) health equity (10) Johnson & Johnson (1) genital warts (1) cosmetics (1) children's health (3) paper tigers (1) San Francisco (3) industry appeals to choice (1) sexual health (1) emergency contraception (1) junk food (2) food (1) default frame (1) media analysis (6) Bloomberg (3) childhood adversity (1) george lakoff (1) gun control (2) social justice (2) news analysis (3) new year's resolutions (1) breastfeeding (3) democracy (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) structural racism (1) PepsiCo (1) sports drinks (1) sugary drinks (10) chronic disease (2) Penn State (3) Chile (1) community organizing (1) Whiteclay (4) gender (1) Merck (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) strategic communication (1) public health (71) language (6) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) sexual assault (1) snap (1) American Beverage Association (1) nanny state (2) Texas (1) diabetes prevention (1) corporate social responsibility (1) soda (12) summer camps (1) sexual violence (2) Happy Meals (1) cervical cancer (1) healthy eating (1) health care (1) soda warning labels (1) SB-5 (1) prevention (1) news (2) food access (1) Michelle Obama (1) Citizens United (1) privilege (1) california (1) FCC (1) front groups (1) choice (1) Telluride (1) suicide nets (1) community safety (1) Berkeley (2) cigarette advertising (1) suicide prevention (2) journalism (1) obesity prevention (1) McDonald's (1) gatorade bolt game (1) news coverage (1) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) community (1) measure N (2) reproductive justice (1) naacp (1) inequities (1) Connecticut shooting (1) ACEs (2) Jerry Sandusky (3) women's health (2) personal responsibility (3) marketing (1) food swamps (1) Catholic church (1) liana winett (1) Bill Cosby (1) weight of the nation (1) race (1) Big Tobacco (3) social change (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) communication (2) food environment (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) childhood obestiy conference (1) soda tax (11) Big Food (2) food justice (1) Wendy Davis (1) authentic voices (1) target marketing (9) built environment (2) Twitter (1) obesity (10) tobacco industry (2) child sexual abuse (5) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) HPV vaccine (1) Proposition 29 (1) media bites (1) Gardasil (1) Measure O (1) media (7) Newtown (1) Proposition 47 (1) Oglala Sioux (3) cannes lions festival (1) diabetes (1) auto safety (1) media advocacy (23) social media (2) food deserts (1) soda taxes (2) suicide barrier (2) violence (2) elephant triggers (1) Donald Trump (2) sexism (2) election 2016 (1) communication strategy (1) El Monte (3) soda industry (4) sanitation (1) government intrusion (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) Tea Party (1) Sam Kass (1) violence prevention (8) messaging (3) water (1) news strategy (1) gun violence (1) beauty products (1) autism (1) mental health (2) Rachel Grana (1) beverage industry (2) childhood trauma (3) Coca-Cola (3) Oakland Unified School District (1) environmental health (1) Richmond (5) regulation (2) indoor smoking ban (1) collaboration (1) Aurora (1) tobacco tax (1) Dora the Explorer (1) campaign finance (1) Colorado (1) water security (1) food and beverage marketing (3) community health (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) Black Lives Matter (1) Joe Paterno (1) abortion (1) institutional accountability (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) stigma (1) SSBs (1) nonprofit communications (1) social math (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: