Bye-Bye Happy Meal Toys

[MEZZANINE]

Happy Meal toys are no different to product placement in supermarkets when they put sweets/toys by the tills ( checkout ) or on lower shelves where children see them, or cartoon characters on cereal packets, adverts between childrens TV shows or a million other things aimed at children.

The marketing people know the parents wont buy the product for quality, value or nutritional content so they target and rely on the child to harass the parent into buying it for an easy/quiet life.

I agree the parents should have more will power, discipline and better sense but that is very easy to say, and in RL much harder to implement

[MEZZANINE]

I agree the parents should have more will power, discipline and better sense but that is very easy to say, and in RL much harder to implement

tbh, I don't care how hard it is. Doesn't change the fact that the government has no place making such restrictions

Then why not allow cigarette adverts to return too if there is nothing wrong in glamorising & encouraging something thats bad for people. At least cigarettes adverts were aimed at adults who understand the consequences.



ps Have you heard in Hong Kong you can now have a McWedding, people actually get married in McDonalds

Do you take this BigMac meal, to eat and to drink, in sickness and in fatness, inside and at drive through, until your premature death

[Empy]

Anyone who voted for that law needs to be deported from the country and never allowed to return. If the law was just passed I hope McDonalds sues the county/state and the courts overturn it. I'm taking Political Science right now and I'm going to be honest, even taking that, this is the dumbest thing I've heard all year.

I really do mean it when I say anyone agrees with that is wrong, that's not my opinion it's pretty much a fact. Government has no right to restrict businesses to advertise/sell their products. What a joke...

[MEZZANINE]

Well as you might have guessed I am not a fan of McDonalds so Im probably bias against them pimping their low quality, environmentally unfriendly, poisonous produce to kids.

When it's comes to adults I say 'No laws for your own good', you educate people and let them make their own informed choices, but kids dont understand the consequences and need to be protected.

[Empy]

Well as you might have guessed I am not a fan of McDonalds so Im probably bias against them pimping their low quality, environmentally unfriendly, poisonous produce to kids.

When it's comes to adults I say 'No laws for your own good', you educate people and let them make their own informed choices, but kids dont understand the consequences and need to be protected.

Ya that point of view is understandable and McDonalds is pretty bad for you ... but it's the parents job to protect the kid from things like this. You wouldn't institute a law protecting adults from McDonalds but you do it for kids because parents complain that their children are fat when it's their fault. (I'm not saying you agree with the law I'm just quoting you and using your post for my own evil purposes ).

[TheSoulHarvester]

well im kind of biased in this since i do actually work for mcdonalds, tho my employer isnt the mcdonalds from america, but instead a franchise contract. I will attest, its not the healthiest food around, but tbh, most foods arent healthy. you think that big bowl of lasagne you ate last night is? NO! or the big pizza? NO! or that delicious macaroni and cheese? HELL NO!
stuff that tastes good, isnt usually healthy
now im fat, but i was fat before mcdonalds, im actually eating more healthily and working out more now that i work there. and yes i do buy mcdonalds food sometimes, but what i AND nutritional experts agree is that you dont need to avoid junk food. just eat it rarely, to me rare is few times a week, to experts once a month or a few. depending on who wrote the article. i couldnt rant on but ill end it here cos itll go to a flame war despite what i say, but Saiyan, you are 150% correct, this is stupid and ridiculous. i cannot believe this is allowed, is there really no institution in the us to watch over the companies and indeed at times the government to ensure fair chances and business for everyone?
yes im not from the us so i dont get affected by it, but still... a "free" country? illusion, me thinks so...

[MEZZANINE]

but kids dont understand the consequences and need to be protected.

considering the meals are bought by their parents...

Are you therefore advocating that companies with huge marketing budgets should be allowed to manipulate impressionable young children into pestering, begging and crying to their parents to get hold of harmful products, thinking their parents are punishing them or being mean by denying them these products ???


If companies like McDonald and many others had any morals, decency or a single thought for the welfare of the children they exploit, they would not market or advertise in these ways, and governments and regulatory bodies would not have to step into area's that would usually be out of their remit.



ps Anyone who thinks they live in a free county is delusional, the only question is who is controlling or manipulating you at any given time, sometimes it's government, sometimes it's big business, sometimes religion, many others and often in combination and concussion.

[Caprila]

Going to McD's is a treat for a kid, just as having a new toy ( however lame is may be) is. The side benefit of the toy keeping said child occupied while you finish your own meal ( the bits they didn't eat ) has always been nice The ones whining about the inclusion of toys making kids fat probably don't have kids, and have never been to mcdonalds.

Seems like politicans have too few topics to discuss and need to pick things out of a basket again.

Does the date stamp on those posts, saying April, mean it already done, dusted & permanent ?

( Btw, if they start coming after promotional offers for buying multiple bars of chocolate, candy or anyother 'non healthy' food.. I'm going to quite annoyed )

[MEZZANINE]

but kids dont understand the consequences and need to be protected.

considering the meals are bought by their parents...

Are you therefore advocating that companies with huge marketing budgets should be allowed to manipulate impressionable young children into pestering, begging and crying to their parents to get hold of harmful products, thinking their parents are punishing them or being mean by denying them these products ???

Are you suggesting that a good parent does whatever a child wants because it won't shut up? Because it throws a hissy fit?

Yes they should be mean and deny it to their children LMAO!
if my kid whines and moans that it wants to spend my paycheck in a toy store do you think I'm going to say yes? **Filtered** no.

In a word NO, in several words, why subject the parent and the child to the situation in the first place ? Are you saying this kind of marketing and advertising targeting childrens pester-power should be allowed just as a test of will power ? Upset the child and make the parents life more difficult in the name of what, Character building maybe ?

[Empy]

but kids dont understand the consequences and need to be protected.

considering the meals are bought by their parents...

Are you therefore advocating that companies with huge marketing budgets should be allowed to manipulate impressionable young children into pestering, begging and crying to their parents to get hold of harmful products, thinking their parents are punishing them or being mean by denying them these products ???

Are you suggesting that a good parent does whatever a child wants because it won't shut up? Because it throws a hissy fit?

Yes they should be mean and deny it to their children LMAO!
if my kid whines and moans that it wants to spend my paycheck in a toy store do you think I'm going to say yes? **Filtered** no.

In a word NO, in several words, why subject the parent and the child to the situation in the first place ? Are you saying this kind of marketing and advertising targeting childrens pester-power should be allowed just as a test of will power ? Upset the child and make the parents life more difficult in the name of what, Character building maybe ?

In the name of this not being Communist Russia perhaps... Government has NO right to interfere is a business advertising it products or promotions to help sell more, ever, for anything, ever.

Why should TV shows that aren't Sesame Street and Barney be on TV? Kids shouldn't watch shows like CSI that are too gruesome and adult-oriented. Those shows are still on TV though, because it's assumed parents that care won't let their 2 or 3 year old see hookers being killed and and dissected on TV. I daresay it's a lot simpler to tell your child they're not getting McDonalds than it is to keep them from watching some TV shows.

The point is you can't just make laws banning things to protect children... because it's insane and infringes on the rights of others.

[xDaku]

but kids dont understand the consequences and need to be protected.

considering the meals are bought by their parents...

Are you therefore advocating that companies with huge marketing budgets should be allowed to manipulate impressionable young children into pestering, begging and crying to their parents to get hold of harmful products, thinking their parents are punishing them or being mean by denying them these products ???

Are you suggesting that a good parent does whatever a child wants because it won't shut up? Because it throws a hissy fit?

Yes they should be mean and deny it to their children LMAO!
if my kid whines and moans that it wants to spend my paycheck in a toy store do you think I'm going to say yes? **Filtered** no.

In a word NO, in several words, why subject the parent and the child to the situation in the first place ? Are you saying this kind of marketing and advertising targeting childrens pester-power should be allowed just as a test of will power ? Upset the child and make the parents life more difficult in the name of what, Character building maybe ?

A decent parent lays down the lay and removes the "pester-power" from the equation. Being an annoying spoiled rotten twit only works if the parents are constantly caving. There for if parents stop caving and letting children get their way all the time, pestering won't mean jack **Filtered**.

The bottom line is simple, mcdonalds does not make children fat. Eating mcdonalds does not make children fat. Eating too much mcdonalds makes children fat, eating too much of anything makes anyone fat. It is the parents responsibility to limit what their child eats, to make sure they aren't living on sugar coated chocolates. It is not mcdonalds fault lousy parents create fat children. It is the parents fault. It is not the government's place to restrict toys with meals to reduce obesity in children. In fact it is going to do nothing to fix the problem, the problem is not children eating mcdonalds the problem is children eating too much. It doesn't matter if its a grease filled burger or a family size bag of potato chips as dinner. If the government wants to make kids less fat, targeting something they eat is not the way to do it, targeting who controls what they eat does.

That is like blaming a cow for eating a type of feed given by the farmer.

Do you have a gaming system? Or when you were young did your parents buy you a gaming system? Or anything of the sort, anything luxurious? Do you think you needed it, or in that sense do you think it was in any sense a good thing for you? Chances are no. Parents can be responsible, but psychology plays a factor. If kids were raised or should be raised like you claim they should, they'd be perfect robots. Because in essence, anything luxurious or any "want" is never good for you. Restrict all that and your child will grow up with negligence issues and insecurities.

I'm studying psychology specifically child psychology so I know a bit about this. You cannot avoid "wants" and you cannot blame the parents for giving in to said "wants" because if they don't it WILL still lead to negative results.

Also, without any government restrictions, we'd have sex on tv available for everyone. Sex in ads for simple products like windows. That's not an exaggeration either.

http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=6039

Since I doubt anyone will read that whole thing, in short form: Sex Sells. And as much as people would like to believe that you can have control over what is being advertised, fact is a lot of psychological research is put into marketing to make sure that what they try to market, cannot be controlled by the customers. It's the basis and the reason for the existence of marketing. You just cannot argue that parents can control what is being marketed so brilliantly by one of the biggest corporations in the world, who became big because of the amount of research they put into marketing. Apple is the biggest example of such a thing for the current age - just looks at the lines for iPhone 4. They're still going.

If the government doesn't take certain actions, and doesn't put limit on what can be marketed and what cannot, then I will just say good luck to the targets of those ads. You don't have as much control as you'd like to believe, and that is a proven psychological fact.

[Empy]

If people want to destroy their body that is their prerogative and personal freedom. That includes parents acting as the decision maker for children. Government has no right infringing on personal freedoms. That's not even what they did though ... they told companies in a county that they cannot advertise their product in a completely reasonable fashion. That goes against what the country was founded on. Simple as.

Rebuttal? Good luck.

[xDaku]

If the government doesn't step in, how do you control the irresponsible parents? Just have the kid lead that life because of irresponsible parents? You're arguing that the government shouldn't restrict people. Guess what? All laws restrict people. The government is there to create law for the betterment of society's health and economy. This law does both.

Even bigger question, why is it such a bad thing if an incentive to buy a happy meal is taken away from the kids, and thereby taking away the stress on the parents?

[Empy]

If the government doesn't step in, how do you control the irresponsible parents? Just have the kid lead that life because of irresponsible parents? You're arguing that the government shouldn't restrict people. Guess what? All laws restrict people. The government is there to create law for the betterment of society's health and economy. This law does both.

Even bigger question, why is it such a bad thing if an incentive to buy a happy meal is taken away from the kids, and thereby taking away the stress on the parents?

The government is not there to create law for the betterment of society's health and economy ... wow you're very wrong.

It's a bad thing because no matter how you spin it the government is taking away rights of the business to operate, and restricting what it can do. Well I'm not sure about you but I think that government has no place telling business how to run their business unless it infringes upon the rights of others. The right to not be fat isn't a right as far as I know.

[xDaku]

Even bigger question, why is it such a bad thing if an incentive to buy a happy meal is taken away from the kids, and thereby taking away the stress on the parents?

Maybe the government should issue blobs of perfectly nutrioned food 3 times a day at designated meal times for everyone to eat instead of letting us decide for ourselves. How does that sound? Imagine the stress removed from everyone, not watching their weight, not needing to buy groceries, not needing to monitor nutrition. You know what else, they could pick our jobs for us, spend our money on things we need. Imagine all the stress gone if we didn't need to be adults and be responsible for ourselves and our families.

Well that's where economics comes in. That would destroy our society. I'm not going to get into that, but there are tons of policies that have gone to extremes that have been bad for a country's economy's and if you're interested I can list a few examples later.

You need a middle point, and those kids still have the options to eat those burgers that their parents still can stop them from eating keeping it their parents responsibilities. They just removed the incentive, not the actual act. No ones choices have changed, the balance was tipped a bit to favor the betterment of society. That is the government doing its job, that is the reason the government was formed.

Socrates would argue against you Empy.