• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is It Wrong For MacDonalds To Advertise Happy Meals

dust1n

Zindīq
Why not advertise? If parents don't want their kids to have it they should explain why. McDonalds in moderation eg. once every 2 weeks isn't harmful in conjunction with excercise. I had it once a week as a child and i never got fat or close to it.

Why restrict businesses because some people are idiots and have no self control when it comes to food?

If you are really curious, here is some info.

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity | Full text | Food Advertising and Marketing Directed at Children and Adolescents in the US
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
If you are really curious, here is some info.
In the end though, ultimately, no one other than the parents are responsible. If a child has McDonalds one day, and wants again the next, it is the parents duty and responsibility to first tell the child no, and then explain why. The parents are supposed to run the show, not the children. It's that simple.
Yes, I am going to let my kids eat Happy Meals on occasion, and if there is a toy that they really want then why not let them have lunch at McDonalds on occasion? After all, McDonalds has smaller portions compared to competitors which technically does make them that much better of a choice, and once in awhile will not hurt the child. It's these parents who don't say no and do not encourage or educate their children about healthy choices that is the problem. Rather than McDonalds, encourage your kids to pick a better option like Subway on the run, and even then you still have to educate them about 6-inch versus foot long, condiments, and so on.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
In the end though, ultimately, no one other than the parents are responsible.

No... anything that is involved is responsible. I am not suggesting parents are not responsible.

If a child has McDonalds one day, and wants again the next, it is the parents duty and responsibility to first tell the child no, and then explain why.

No arguments here.

The parents are supposed to run the show, not the children. It's that simple.

When did I get anywhere even close to insinuating that children were suppose to run anything?

Yes, I am going to let my kids eat Happy Meals on occasion, and if there is a toy that they really want then why not let them have lunch at McDonalds on occasion? After all, McDonalds has smaller portions compared to competitors which technically does make them that much better of a choice, and once in awhile will not hurt the child. It's these parents who don't say no and do not encourage or educate their children about healthy choices that is the problem. Rather than McDonalds, encourage your kids to pick a better option like Subway on the run, and even then you still have to educate them about 6-inch versus foot long, condiments, and so on.

I'm not referring to just McDonald's. I'd prefer regulation on any company trying to advertise towards children.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
When did I get anywhere even close to insinuating that children were suppose to run anything?
Just my response to the article you posted that was blaming advertisement. If the author doesn't like the advertisements, then turn of the damn TV.
 

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard

Parents pay, thus its is their responsibility and their decision.

Here in Oz McDonalds market a particular movie their happy meals toys are based on. If parents don't want their kids eating rusbbish, get them healthy food.

By this reasoning they shouldn't be allowed to market anything really because of the negative affects it MIGHT have.

I agree with Shadow Wolf. If there is a concern its not the companies fault they want to make money. If people don't like it, use authority over their children and get them healthy food, its not hard.
 

Songbird

She rules her life like a bird in flight
Whatever. I'm suing McDonalds, advertisement producers, and obese children. And television manufacturers, for good measure.
 

ninerbuff

godless wonder
Is it wrong?

California mom sues McDonald's over Happy Meals - Yahoo!7



Personally i don't think so. They do have a point about the cognitive stage of children, but ultimately it is the parents who feed the kids Maccas.

Mind you i don't have kids so i'm not too sure.

But from my own personal experience when i was growing up we had maccas maybe once or twice a year and there was plenty of advertising.

And you know what, i don't remember ever being that upset that i couldn't have it.

What do you guys think?

-Q
Cereal companies, pop tarts, crush cups, etc. all advertise also. Parents who are too "weak" to say no to a child screaming for Mcdonald's toys (you can just purchase the toy without the meal) shouldn't be parents. Lol, what's funny is that when you see they kid getting a toy, the parent is getting a quarter pounder with cheese at the same time. Nice way to blame their overweight kid, as well as themselves, to McDonalds' Happy meals.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Just my response to the article you posted that was blaming advertisement. If the author doesn't like the advertisements, then turn of the damn TV.

You might want to reread that article. Especially it had nothing to do with children making decisions for parents.
 
Last edited:

dallas1125

Covert Operative
:facepalm: How many times do I have to ask the question? Would you rather a.) Have some sort of regulation on what can be marketed to kids, thus prohibit any nagging caused by such marketing or b.) Have that marketing unregulated, and the nations kids subject to billions of dollars worth of psychologist money, and that the off chance that YOUR kids might be subject to them (make sure to note that schools are great places to advertise to kids who must attend) and start nagging at your kid, forcing you to have to discipline your child (which I always imagined as a not fun situation, certainly wasn't for me as a child) and deal with nagging? Explain.
Would you rather have parents be able to refuse their childrens requests without government intervention?

I wouls go with having the market unregulated. If our only answer is to have the government do it for us, thats a problem. We need to take action and deal with it.

I fail to see how wanting some regulation on what can be target towards children (because, you know... there are bad parents who will let their kids be exploited) equates to that they are not ready to 'do what it takes' or 'to be parents'. My point is, many parents are not aware of what targeted marketing or television can do to children, sometimes because their parents themselves did not know. Being a parent took place ten thousand years ago and parenting is based off hundreds and thousands of years of evolution; how is not being ready to constantly battled your kid's seduced mind nagging for consumer products equate to not being able to do what it takes to raise kids?
Kids have always nagged parents for things throughout history. Whether it was for a happy meal or to go do whatever, it has always existed. If you are a parent and you cannot say no to your child, how are you going to be able to raise them? If my parents said yes to everything I have ever wanted to do, I would be in jail.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Parents pay, thus its is their responsibility and their decision.

Here in Oz McDonalds market a particular movie their happy meals toys are based on. If parents don't want their kids eating rusbbish, get them healthy food.

By this reasoning they shouldn't be allowed to market anything really because of the negative affects it MIGHT have.

I agree with Shadow Wolf. If there is a concern its not the companies fault they want to make money. If people don't like it, use authority over their children and get them healthy food, its not hard.

:facepalm: I had a feeling the article wouldn't be read. I am perfecting aware the 'responsibility' and 'decision-making' that takes place for the parents. Again, I'm not referring to McDonald's or how healthy their food is. I don't care if the advertisement is ******* Flintstone's vitamins. My reasoning does not suggest that nothing can be marketed, so no need to make my arguments for me. My problem is with companies who MARKET TOWARDS CHILDREN. It is also not just a television ad. You discount schools and their advertising, etc. There is a concern and it may not be the companies fault (despite spending billions of dollars in capital to do just that), but not addressing the issue is no actual solution for the original concern.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Would you rather have parents be able to refuse their childrens requests without government intervention?
As opposed to...? Limiting advertising reach is not going to prevent anyone from being able to refuse their children's request. And the 'government intervention' has nothing to do with how one raises a child.

I wouls go with having the market unregulated. If our only answer is to have the government do it for us, thats a problem. We need to take action and deal with it.
So, cigarette ads back television, billboards, and schools then, right?


Kids have always nagged parents for things throughout history. Whether it was for a happy meal or to go do whatever, it has always existed. If you are a parent and you cannot say no to your child, how are you going to be able to raise them? If my parents said yes to everything I have ever wanted to do, I would be in jail.
I have a feeling you have nagged your parents into buying you something before in your life.

And damnit.. we have the same siggy! Now I have to find a new one. =[
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Whatever. I'm suing McDonalds, advertisement producers, and obese children. And television manufacturers, for good measure.

If corporations weren't considered legal people, they wouldn't be able to get sued. I'm totally with you for fixing the problem.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
You might want to reread that article.
While multiple factors influence eating behaviors and food choices of youth, one potent force is food advertising. [16] Today's youth live in a media-saturated environment. Over the past 10 years, US children and adolescents have increasingly been targeted with intensive and aggressive forms of food marketing and advertising practices through a range of channels. [17-22] Marketers are interested in children and adolescents as consumers because they spend billions of their own dollars annually, influence how billions more are spent through household food purchases, and are future adult consumers. [18,23] It is estimated that US adolescents spend $140 billion a year. Children under 12 years of age spend another $25 billion, but may influence another $200 billion of spending per year. [23,24]

The purpose of this article is to examine the food advertising and marketing channels used to target US children and adolescents, the impact of food advertising on eating behavior of youth, and current regulation and policies. The emphasis of this article is on food advertising and marketing practices in the United States.
The authors do acknowledge multiple factors, but ultimately it is parental guidance that trumps all. Such as turning off the TV, saying no, education, and so on.
 
Last edited:

dust1n

Zindīq
The authors can blame marketing all they want, but in the end parental guidance is the main key.

Again... where do they blame marketing? They first line is:

"While multiple factors influence eating behaviors and food choices of youth, one potent force is food advertising."

Are you arguing that this is untrue? Because the article certainly isn't arguing that 'parental guidance' isn't the main key.
 

dallas1125

Covert Operative
As opposed to...? Limiting advertising reach is not going to prevent anyone from being able to refuse their children's request. And the 'government intervention' has nothing to do with how one raises a child.
The government is intervening so a parent doesnt have to say no.

So, cigarette ads back television, billboards, and schools then, right?
Interesting. I would say fine to all of those but schools. No one should be allowed to advertise in schools.


I have a feeling you have nagged your parents into buying you something before in your life.
Maybe, but it hardly ever worked. It usually ended up with me getting spanked.

[qoute]And damnit.. we have the same siggy! Now I have to find a new one.[/quote]
What? Wow, lol. I like the one you have now, is that the new one?
 

blackout

Violet.
My kids' school gives out free happy meal coupons
when they complete a reading chart each month.

Or you can get a pizza slice and a soda.

Guess which one they always want, and why. :yes:
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Hey, I've got a novel idea - parents could restrict any television programming that has commercials till the kids are older.

GASP!
 

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
Hey, I've got a novel idea - parents could restrict any television programming that has commercials till the kids are older.

GASP!

Why does everyone want parents to do the government's job? All parents can do is say no and discipline the child - government can actually fix the problem by changing what's on the television.
 
Top