source: Google Images
A lot can be said and has been said about McDonalds new, healthier happy meals.
Experts and pundits are debating several different points: are the new meals a response to consumer demand or to the the de-facto threat of government force? Are the meals a good step in the right direction or just a glorified PR stunt?
I’m not a nutrition expert, so I can’t weigh in [heh] on much of the debate, but I would like to point out some interesting language used by self-described “public health lawyer, writer, and advocate for food justice,” Michele Simon.
Last Wednesday, she published a piece entitled Who Put McDonalds in charge of Kids’ Health?
In part, it reads:
“While my colleagues have done a great job of explaining why nutritionally, this move is little more than PR (see Marion Nestle and Andy Bellatti), missing from the analysis so far is this: what McDonald’s really wants is to remain in charge.”
Who put McDonalds in charge of our kids health? The better question is: “Why should we put the government in charge?” Because the truth is, McDonalds is only in charge of McDonalds. They can’t control what people eat, or which people eat at McDonalds. All they can do is make a product, let people know about it, and sell it.
Simon’s title is almost exactly backwards. McDonalds isn’t in charge of kids health, but Simon and her fellow food paternalists want to put the government at the helm. The only people that should be in charge of kids’ health are parents. In fact, if the government gets involved, fast food lobbyists might have an easier time having things their way [heh heh].
“Who is in charge here? McDonald’s ultimate goal is to make as little change as possible to get media attention (and praise from the likes of the first lady), while distracting policymakers from doing its [sic] job setting the boundaries of corporate behavior.”
This really goes above and beyond run-of-the-mill food paternalism.
If policy makers are satisfied with the new Happy Meals, doesn’t that mean that McDonald’s has moved inside the “boundaries of corporate behavior” that the government is apparently supposed to set? What’s this business about “distraction?” If these policy-makers are so easily “distracted,” I question the wisdom of allowing them to make these kinds of decisions in the first place.
A few of my fellow interns and I got into a little twebate [yes, folks, that is a twitter debate. Deal with it] with Ms. Simon.
Though it seems like she accused us (and/or others) of the inability to walk and chew gum at the same time, and of being “so dumb” (and then asking us to “keep it civil“), I think it was a pretty healthy exchange [heh heh heh].
She makes a good point when she says:
“Folks, 2 ideas can be true at once. 1) Parents need to make good choices for kids. 2) McD should stop targeting kids. See, easy?”
Here are another two ideas that can be true at once: 1)McDonalds should conduct themselves responsibly. 2)The government need not interfere.
