Don't Toy with Mickey D's!

McDonald's was recently sued by a mother of two, Monet Parham. Along with nutrition and healthy food safety advocate, The Center for Science in the Public Interest. They demand McDonald's remove toys from Happy Meals, CSPI  claims it violates California law, making  meals too appealing to kids, causing overeating and life long obesity. I ask, What do the toys have to do with obesity? McDonald's now offers substitutes for Happy Meals, apples for fries, milk for soda. Happy Meals do not equal obesity. Parham also claims her childern's persistance for the meal causes her to spend money she wasn't intending to spend and causes her children to pout. She states, "We have to say no to our kids so many times and McDonald's makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat." Michael Jacobson, CSPI's executive director compared the tactics to tobacco companies marketing to kids with things like Joe Camel. This suit is ridiculous to say the least. Parents are the authority, with the means to purchase what their childeren consume. There are far better and more significant issues to sue a company over.

Why McDonald's?  Its not  the only fast food chain who provide a toy with their kid's meal. Chickfila, Dairy Queen, Sonic, Burger King, Whataburger, also offer toys, just to name a few.Where are their lawsuits? Toys aren't just "toys" some toys offered are educational, some are story books and some promote current movies.. A toy in the kid's meal should be a postive for parents, you can feed your child and offer them a toy for under 4 bucks. When I was younger I recall collecting the Barbies given in my Happy Meals, and the small Disney Princess figures like Snow White and Cinderella, would be used as decoration in the huge hair bows my mom would make me as a child. I have very found memories of McDonald's toys growing up. McDonald's says it is proud of its Happy Meals and will defend the company's brand, its reputation and its food. "We stand on our 30-year track record of providing a fun experience for kids and families at McDonald's," said Bridget Coffing, a company spokesperson.  Now being a parent myself I don't share the same attitude toward happy Meal toys as the Parham. If my daughter wants McDonald's and its not something I am willing to buy that day, I wont, period. She can throw a fit, and she will forget about it 5 minutes later, very simple.

If this case were to rule in the favor of the Parham it would set precedent that would allow too many silly lawsuits that will waste the court's time and money. For example, a wife could now sue a strip club and say, "Strip club X has half and sometime fully naked women advertised to my husband, and well he can't help himself to go in there. Thus spending his paycheck, leaving us in debt. Now I want to sue Strip club X for millons of dollars and demand the entertainers to be fully clothed." Or a husaband can sue Lancome or Estee Lauder (leading cosmetic comapnies) for advertising  "free gifts with purchase" because "My wife spends all her money on cosmetics when the "free gift" is being offered, and she is being lured by Beauty Consultants as she walk by the counters. Lancome and Estee Lauder should discontinue this free gift event and stop the Beauty Consulants from talking to my wife." Sound silly right? This Happy Meal Lawsuit is just as silly and is clearly a way of blaming someone else for bad parenting. The court system is designed to protect the people and our rights, not as a place to make a quick million, or to point the finger to avoid their short comings as a parents.