Some people need to shut up and get a real job....

[Hulk]

Why are we surprised when this group does things like this. They go after high publicity value targets. The more we talk about them, the better they do. Winning doesn't matter to them. This is the way THEY advertise.

[Sandman9580]

These are the same dumb-A's who sued McD's because the coffee was too hot. Seriously???

There's a lot of ignorance and misinformation surrounding the McDonald's litigation. It's kind of unfortunate that it's become such a joke.

The Actual Facts about the McDonald's Coffee Case

[Brazoo]

I agree with Sandman 9580 on the coffee thing - no one should get 3rd degree burns from a coffee, and it was only that hot out of connivence for McDonlad's sake.

I use to be more anti-McDonald's marketing - but then I got nieces. My brothers never made McDonald's a big deal to their kids - they never used it as a reward - and they hardly ever went. When they ask their kids were they want to eat, they NEVER ONCE have said McDonald's.

I don't think McDonald's is the worst thing in the world once in a while, and it's not like you can't get terrible food other places - but seriously speaking, I don't think the marketing is the only thing to blame - bad behaviour almost always comes from the parents in my experience.

[TrueDave]

What's sad to me is how our system makes something like this cheaper to settle out of court. I bet that is what the initiators are banking on and most people would rather just pay someone off to avoid the insane circus of public opinion and the "justice system" that loves to play into it all...and has to dance to the tune being played.

Lawsuits and the legal system have nothing to do with right or wrong just money. Sometimes being a grown up and knowing this truth stinks. :-(

[megoat]

I suppose the real question at hand is should gigantic corporations be able to aggressively market unhealthy products to children?

I mean, what we are seeing now is basically an extension of the anti smoking lobby who went after big tobacco in much the same way and have now shifted to target major junk food peddlers.

At what point are food manufacturers held to the same accountability as big tobacco?

I know it's a sort of apples and oranges deal: the difference between food (we all gotta eat) and tobacco (not a necessity) is large but does anyone think that food companies bear ANY responsibility?

The McDonald's stooge in the article referred to the food in a Happy Meal as "wholesome". Really? If that ain't corporate malarkey-speak......sounds exactly like the bull tobacco companies would say.....

Don't get me wrong. I eat at McDonalds. I like McDonalds. Just throwing this out there for discussion.....

[Bill]

I suppose the real question at hand is should gigantic corporations be able to aggressively market unhealthy products to children?

Take a walk down the cereal aisle.

If anything were worth buying would there even need to be marketing?

[Zemo]

but does anyone think that food companies bear ANY responsibility?

I don't think so.

[Brazoo]

Ultimately parents bare the burden for their children's bad behaviour, and this is really what the suit is about in my mind.

Kids only seem to waste energy nagging when they know that what they want is something they can possibly get (though I admit that's only based on my anecdotal knowledge). So "My kid won't shut up until I give them McDonald's" sound like learned behaviour or even training to me. It sounds like McDonald's is part of a reward system the parents' have used, or at least the kids have learned their parents can be worn down. If the parents never gave in I think the nagging would stop - or at least they'd nag about something else.

I think these companies do bare some responsibility for the health quality of their food, but I'm conflicted about this particular issue being a legal issue because it's still about consumer choice. I do think it's good to raise awareness about making healthy eating choices - and I think listing ingredients, calories and other health risk additive like sodium or fat content should be the law for all mass marketed foods so that people can make better educated choices - but I don't like the idea of passing the buck when it comes to the responsibility parents have for their children, because where's the line drawn?

[VintageMike]

What waste of time. These groups always go to the extreme and kill any credibility they have by doing so. The healthier option Happy Meals mentioned in the article are in McDonald's favor as well. I hope this actually goes to court and this group loses and has to pay court costs. Let them pay for being so idiotic!

[saildog]

I realize the issue is that McDonald's targets kids by offering toys to sell fast food and we have an obesity epidemic among youngsters.

However, there are many other factors that contribute to our children being fat and they ALL market to kids....AND they always have, even when I was a skinny kid and "fat kids" were rare.

I ate McDonald's (every once in a while), I played video games, I ate junk food. I also played outside most of the time, rode my bike everywhere, and the only time I ever got a ride to school was when it was raining. By the time I was in Fifth Grade, we had to do the "Mile Run" in PE and I swam the mile when I was 12 years old. It took me an hour, but I did it....because I was challenged to do it (under totally supervised conditions). Just normal kid stuff back then.

Times have changed, I realize, but junk food was just as available back in those days (probably more so because there was no fat epidemic and no lawsuits or outcry...hell, the biggest concern was that sugar would rot our teeth). I think the real problem is that life today isn't set up for kids to be as physically active as when we were kids. On top of that, the value of physical activity is no longer there, nor is it correct to challenge them to "get off their asses" even in the instances when it is perfectly safe, reasonable, convenient, and appropriate to do so.