I am not sure what to make of this article about a Sacramento mother who, along with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, is part of a lawsuit against McDonald’s to get them stop using toys to market meals to young children.
Monet Parham said she is upset that her children request McDonald’s food after seeing the company’s ads.
My son requested an Apple iPad for Christmas, should I sue Apple for making them so darn handy? I mean, 9.7 inches of Bejeweled goodness. I am not made of wood you know.
They claim McDonald’s decision to markets its meals directly to young children violates several consumer protection laws because it exploits a child’s vulnerability.
A child’s vulnerability? To play with toys and crave French fries? How about the cereal aisle at the supermarket? The positioning of those sugary-sweet-teeth-rotters exploits a child’s vulnerability to not see anything above 4 feet, right?
From the CSPI artcle…
â€œI am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonaldâ€™s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience,â€ Parham said. â€œBut as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say â€˜noâ€™ to our young children so many times, and McDonaldâ€™s makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonaldâ€™s is getting into my kidsâ€™ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.â€
This just boils down to the point that, as parents, it is our job to not take our children to McDonald’s if we are against their marketing antics. No matter how many times we have to say no, right?
I did enjoy the positioning of the McDonald’s ad on the KCRA page though. Mmmm, double cheeseburger. What were we upset about again?