cnb88 Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 Saw this in the paper today and just shook my head: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/mcdonalds-sued-over-happy-meals-20101215-081807-746.html. So you're suing McDonald's because YOU choose to feed your child that food? Last I checked there were other, healthier places that give you a toy (like Subway). I don't know if it's just in Canada, but they have "healthy" food as options too. The fact of the matter is, is that parents are responsible for their children and their eating habits. As a "sometimes" food, there's nothing wrong with Mickey D's (or other fast food for that matter). It's when it becomes more than a "sometimes" food that's the problem. If your kid whines and cries for it, and you give in every time, guess what- the kid will learn that if he/she whines and cries enough, you'll eventually give in. Anyways... enough of my rant. The question is: do you think the mom has a case/will win if it goes to court? And why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juice Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 I think taco bell is healthy and is a gift from God to us north-american mortals. Also, SUBWAY makes you sexy... or it's just that sexy people eat SUBWAY. p.s. that woman doesn't have that good of a case, but it's not completely frivolous. Mcdonalds is definitely run by the devil, lol. seriously though..it's literally the worst food one can consume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 The suit states that: "Internal McDonald's documents prove its intent to subvert parental authority." This is really sad. How can you sue someone because you're unable to say "no" to your kid? Why don't I go sue Cineplex for not allowing me to bring my own food and drinks. And while I'm at it, I'll go sue UofT for their 25% of class A's policy. You can't sue when you have the option of saying no to the service! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylamonkey Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 If anyone is curious about the San Fran ban on Happy Meal toys the article talks about, I've been following this story a little. I posted this on a course discussion forum a few weeks ago so I'll repost it here now: ****************************************** Early this month, San Fransisco implemented a law that will ban fast-food restaurants from giving away free toys in kids meals unless the meals meet nutritional guidelines. Meals for children will be required to contain fruits/veggies, and have less than 600 calories, low sodium, and low sugar, otherwise they can't include a free toy. The proponents of the law call it an "incentive", not a ban, since the toys can still be included in meals that meet guidelines, but industry reps say that parents should be deciding what their kids get as part of the meals, not lawmakers. The law will take effect in 2012. An article that gives the specifics of the law: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-11-03/news/24810367_1_toy-ban-breakfast-meal-happy-meal An article that talks a little more about the nationwide implications: http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/daily-money/mcdonalds-hit-by-happy-meal-toy-ban/1510/ An article focused on an audience in the meat industry- note this in the last paragraph: "Happy Meals... give our youngest guests wholesome food and toys of the highest quality" http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/201110/usa___mcdonalds_and_childrens_toy_ban.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emma3 Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 I think this is worse than the hot coffee case.. How about don't ever take your small children to Mcdonalds then they won't know about the toys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreaM Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 Everywhere gives out a free something with their children's meals, not just McDonald's, so it's not like there aren't other options out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrogirl Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 If your kid is obsessing over the toys, McDonald's sells them without the food for like a dollar. My mom goes into McDonald's all the time to buy the transformer toys for my nephew, who's two years old and barely eats anything anyway but loves transformers. No one tied this woman down and forced her eat there. Plus you can order a happy meal and substitute apples for the fries, get a side salad instead of a burger (most people don't actually realize that, though), and get milk for the drink. So it's not like they only serve bad food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatonekid Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 Plus you can order a happy meal and substitute apples for the fries, get a side salad instead of a burger (most people don't actually realize that, though), and get milk for the drink. So it's not like they only serve bad food.I was just about to post this argument. The value of a Happy Meal is what the parent makes of it.Why don't I go sue Cineplex for not allowing me to bring my own food and drinks.What? I bring my own food/drinks to Cineplex if I've just been out eating. You guys have strict people in Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Law Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 Very rarely do we see a consensus like this on premed101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 I was just about to post this argument. The value of a Happy Meal is what the parent makes of it.What? I bring my own food/drinks to Cineplex if I've just been out eating. You guys have strict people in Toronto. The one time I had a bottle of coke with me, they said I couldn't take it in. :s Very rarely do we see a consensus like this on premed101. haha I know. The poll results look......abnormal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hking03 Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 The one time I had a bottle of coke with me, they said I couldn't take it in. :s I used to work for Famous Players (before it was bought by Cineplex)... It may be a theatre dependent practice, but where I worked- as long as you weren't bringing in an entire pizza and 2L of coke... it wasn't an issue. Although, some ticket rippers can be more strict than others. I worked in projection, so I didn't have a lot of interaction with customers... or ticket rippers. As for the policy of not letting food into the theatres... it makes sense- food is what theatres make money on... it sucks that drinks are 5.00 and a bag of popcorn is 6.00, but they lose money on the prints, employees, hydro, rent and various upkeep expenses. I don't agree with it, but I also don't like paying more than 10.00 to go see a movie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 I really don't think this is a case of mom blaming McD's for her bad parenting (that said, you shouldn't be giving in to your toddler's demands every single time), although on the surface it might look like that. I think it's a lawsuit to draw attention to the issue of junk food advertising geared towards children, and I fully agree that it should be stopped. McDonald's exploits very young California children and harms their health by advertising unhealthy happy meals with toys directly to them," the suit states. I totally agree with this statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Law Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 I used to work for Famous Players (before it was bought by Cineplex)... It may be a theatre dependent practice, but where I worked- as long as you weren't bringing in an entire pizza and 2L of coke... it wasn't an issue. Although, some ticket rippers can be more strict than others. I worked in projection, so I didn't have a lot of interaction with customers... or ticket rippers. As for the policy of not letting food into the theatres... it makes sense- food is what theatres make money on... it sucks that drinks are 5.00 and a bag of popcorn is 6.00, but they lose money on the prints, employees, hydro, rent and various upkeep expenses. I don't agree with it, but I also don't like paying more than 10.00 to go see a movie... In the GTA most places are charging $13.50 to go see a movie. And I love seeing movies, so it costs my poor piggy bank a lot of money. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatonekid Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 In the GTA most places are charging $13.50 to go see a movie. And I love seeing movies, so it costs my poor piggy bank a lot of money. lolYou don't have toonie tuesdays? That's sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charon Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 Even if there's a bit of truth in her sayings, that's still not a serious case. I'm not surprised there's a pmed101 consensus. =p And for sure, she will lose her case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 I think she has somewhat of a case, not for any sort of money, but for maybe a law requiring nationwide minimum health standard for foods that are advertised with toys since the target audience are children who don't have the cognitive capacity to understand what's going on and who often scream and fight with their parents, if that doesn't have to happen then why should it... well see what happens I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 yeah, i think that's more her aim than any sort of monetary compensation I really don't think this is a case of mom blaming McD's for her bad parenting (that said, you shouldn't be giving in to your toddler's demands every single time), although on the surface it might look like that. I think it's a lawsuit to draw attention to the issue of junk food advertising geared towards children, and I fully agree that it should be stopped. I totally agree with this statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.