http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100623/ap_on_bi_ge/us_mcdonald_s_lawsuit_toys


Group will sue McDonald's over Happy Meal toys
Buzz up!33 votes Send
Email IM .Share
Facebook Twitter Delicious Digg Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks .Print .. Reuters – A man carries his food as he leaves a McDonald's restaurant in Arlington,Virginia, July 23, 2009. …
.Related Quotes Symbol Price Change
^DJI 10,293.52 -148.89
^GSPC 1,095.31 -17.89
^IXIC 2,261.80 -27.29

By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press Writer Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jun 22, 8:36 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Are the toys in your child's Happy Meal making him fat?

The Center for Science in the Public Interest says they are. The Washington-based consumer advocacy group threatened to file a lawsuit against McDonald's Tuesday, charging that the fast food chain "unfairly and deceptively" markets the toys to children.

"McDonald's marketing has the effect of conscripting America's children into an unpaid drone army of word-of-mouth marketers, causing them to nag their parents to bring them to McDonald's," CSPI's Stephen Gardner wrote to the heads of the chain in a letter announcing the lawsuit.

The center, which has filed dozens of lawsuits against food companies in recent years, is hoping the publicity and the threat of a lawsuit will force McDonald's to negotiate with them on the issue. The group announced the lawsuit in the letter to McDonald's 30 days before filing it with the hope that the company will agree to stop selling the toys before a suit is filed.

McDonald's Vice President of Communications, William Whitman, said in a statement that the company "couldn't disagree more" with CSPI's assertion that their toys violate any laws. He said McDonald's restaurants offer more variety than they ever have and Happy Meals are made smaller for kids.

"We are proud of our Happy Meal which gives our customers wholesome food and toys of the highest quality and safety," Whitman said. "Getting a toy is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald's."

CSPI says the suit would be filed in state court. The center has not settled on a state yet, but the group believes the toys in Happy Meals violate state consumer protection laws in Massachusetts, Texas, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and California.

California's Santa Clara County voted earlier this year to ban restaurants from giving away the toys and other freebies that often come with high-calorie meals aimed at kids.

McDonald's has fought such criticism for years, and the company made a pledge in 2007 to advertise only two types of Happy Meals to children younger than 12: one with four Chicken McNuggets, apple dippers with caramel dip and low-fat white milk, or one with a hamburger, apple dippers and milk. They both meet the company-set requirement of less than 600 calories, and no more than 35 percent of calories from fat, 10 percent of calories from saturated fat or 35 percent total sugar by weight.

CSPI argues that even if those Happy Meals appear in advertisements, kids order the unhealthier meals most of the time.

The group is hoping its first lawsuit against the mega-chain will have a similar effect as its 2006 lawsuit against Kellogg that prompted the company to agree to a settlement raising the nutritional value of cereals and snacks it markets to children.

Still, some may accuse the group of extremism, arguing that it's the parents' responsibility to monitor what their children eat, not the restaurant's.

Michael Jacobson, executive director of CSPI, says it's the parents responsibility too, but he equates the toy giveaways to a door to door salesman coming to a family's house every day and asking to privately speak with the children.

"At some point parents get worn down," Jacobson says. "They don't always want to be saying no to their children. We feel like an awful lot of parents would be relieved if this one pressure was removed from them."

McDonald's also came under fire over Happy Meals earlier this year when it recalled 12 million "Shrek" drinking glasses sold with the meals. The Consumer Product Safety Commission said the levels of the carcinogen cadmium in the glasses was too high.


well they said Ubama's speech was at a 10th grade level and that was more than we could understand.

Where'd that silly wabbitt go

One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish ...

Some people will sue on unfounded crap, see the birthers, and some people will connect Obama to all kinds of illegitimate things for whatever silly reason they have.

we do seem to be an overly litigious society

Apparently we are so stuip that we can't even spell stupid anymore.

Sorry guy... I couldn't resist. I tried. Really I did. But I just couldn't help it. Sue me.

They are probably just sleyp

Well personally i like "well they said Ubama's speech " because i conotated it as Ur bama Mama speech flew over the coocoo's head. But yes I should Sue you then i can get national press for being so stuip oh sorry stupid.Jethro Bo Dean said about Getting Lost. " Jed she likes me.. She said for me to (get lost) . hot diggidy dam I get to go find her all over again..I love America"

In the U.S., one of the greatest complaints we hear voiced today includes a work which takes on a reprehensible meaning - LIBERALIST, liberal, liberalism - which takes its meaning from some misassigned connotation to socialism. Of course socialism also gets a bad rap because so many people seem incabable of separating socialism from communism - which takes a bad rap because of the stigma U.S.propaganda created which createe the cold war.

You see how it all follows - it's all hype because it seems that parents in the U.S. are suddenly incabable of disciplining their children, or teaching self-control or human values and ethics separate from religion. (not knocking religion, just saying there are human values in addition to the religiously inspired ones.)

So at the same time that millions of voices are raised against the "socialist" views of the "Liberals", many of those same millions are demanding that their children be communal property, such that every business, school, and even the government provide a save haven in which they can play, eat, and learn without ever encountering the need to develop self-control, or have any experience that might teach them how to THINK about consequences.

Of course the fact that a major part of the new health care bill will be dedicated to programs addressing the 5 major health issues, one of which is obesity, will be teaching ADULTS about "diet"/nutrition and the need for regular exercise.

I get the feeling the billions of tax dollars that will be bringing all this to the population will have unforseen consequences - as in millions of ADULTS who are being told they must themselves begin to exercise self-control. Could the backlash be that neighbors will claim child abuse when grouchy parents refuse their kids fast food?

We could be a really grouchy country for a long time, the poor kids....

It all seems to me that all this crazy stuff started when our federal Govt. decided they knew what was best for private citizens (the middle class) and deemed Unions contracts could be broke and our Govt. would support the Big Business who did it.

All at the same time convincing the general Public that Unions were bad for America. Yes Red the Liberals who were for 50+ years making it possible for a 1 income family to Buy a house and a car ect and one parent stay home with the kids.

Yea they got what they wanted. NAFTA 401k and now a 2 income household to make ends meet.

So what happened after we broke the Unions ?

Jobs went overseas.

Unions of course started thier spiral downhill which is what kept wages up for the average American citizen in the 1st place.

Big Business told us now save for your future and we will match part of it tax free.. Sounds good..It did huh.

What really happened. Let u answer that one witha question. How many company paid pensions are thier now?

And of course once the unions became ineffective because our govt' would jump in anytime the union had a good foothold to stand on and fire3 anyone who dide not show up for work. (I am not talking about small businesses either)


Thank you Mr. Reagan for your zeal and corrisma from Hollywood acting school. Fire those Air Traffic controllers they make to much.. Fire those Detroit Garbage men they are over paid.

Yes Mr. Reagan I wrote u in 1983 and told u i was willing to give up my 24 dollar a month raise while serving in the Military to do my part. All I ask is congress do the same.. Answer.. we are sorry they vote for thier own raises. What a Union they have Mr. President and we the people still have not broke it. Oh yea thier raise they gave themselves in 1983 while telling everyone we need to cut back and the middle class made to much money.. 12k 1.5x my annual salary.

Wow is this 1983 or 2010. Mystro hurry up get the time machine I think i heard a sound from the Grave.. Mr. Gorbichave we are going to put that wall up now. We are the NEW U!!!! Thank you very much

Very good post, we must be close in age - because I really get the the images from the illustrations you words create.

All my family were blue collar union workers and they had the life we often refer to as fulfillment of the American dream. Becasue of unions my grandfathers, my uncles, my dad were able to retire with nearly no disruption to their normal lifestyle.

All of that makes it easy to idealize unions BUT, all of those family members SAVED on their own, in savings accounts that paid 1 or 2 percent interest (simple not compounded). My mother never had to work - well, more acurately we lived so that she wouldn't have to within our means. At 65 my mother applied to about about 8 placed before a bank would give a $500 limit credit card - becaue my parents had NEVER gone into debt for anything other than their mortgage. Every car was paid for in cash - saved for separately from THE SAVINGS account.

The point I'm making is that today the average woman spends more on clothes and makeup in a year than my father earned in two years - and they do so without the need for unions.

One of the greatest concerns for economists has been the lack of 'savings' over the last decade. So we don't need unions, in fact the truth is, if even half of the products available for purchase today were union, few people could afford them - at least, not without changing their lifestyle.

Also we are no longer the kind industrial nation in which unions thrive - so while they had a very important place in our history, it was time for them to phase out.

Our problems now are reflected in the article of the opening post: As a country, we lack self-control and to the detriment of our children that same lack is being handed down.

Unfortunately, they will have to learn to deal with responsibilitiy the hard way, as they inherit not only the debt of our follie but the needs and expense of an aging population who did not prepare for their future and that population will be a 'numerous' weight to carry.

Unions could not have prevented this, in fact they would have proved to be a hinderance in many ways, particularly to world trade which has been and will continue to be vital as our populations grow and our need for natural resourses exceeds this countries carrying capacity.