US mother sues McDonalds over Happy Meals

Mods please merge if there is a thread on this already, I can't find one.

This sort of crap really riles me.

Why is it so difficult for so many members of our society to take responsbility for themselves? Are people really that incapable of making the right choices, are they that dumb that they have to be brainwashed into doing things that they don't want to do?

And also; why can't parents say NO to their kids any more?

Just....grrrrr.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1216/mcdonalds.html

A mother-of-two from California has launched a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's, claiming the toys given out with Happy Meals unfairly lure children into eating unhealthy food.

Monet Parham is spearheading the suit backed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, aimed at stopping the fast-food giant's use of toys in marketing aimed directly at small children.

The CSPI says such marketing illegally exploits children. Ms Parham says the main reason her six-year-old daughter, Maya, asks to go to McDonald's is to get toys based on Barbie, i-Carly, Shrek, or Strawberry Shortcake.


'I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald's should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience,' said Ms Parham, from Sacramento.

'But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say 'no' to our young children 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.'

The CSPI cited the Institute of Medicine and the American Psychological Association as saying that 'kids as young as Maya do not have the cognitive maturity to understand the persuasive intent of advertising.'

'Every time McDonald's markets a Happy Meal directly to a young child, it exploits a child's developmental vulnerability and violates several states' consumer protection laws,' said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner.

McDonald's said it would defend itself against the lawsuit, which Ms Parham and the CSPI said they were filing in the California Superior Court in San Francisco.

'We are proud of our Happy Meals and intend to vigorously defend our brand,' spokeswoman Bridget Coffing told the LA Times newspaper, adding that Happy Meals offer quality foods in smaller portions appropriate for children.

'We are confident that parents understand and appreciate that Happy Meals are a fun treat, with quality, right-sized food choices for their children that can fit into a balanced diet,' she added.

The action came after San Francisco last month agreed to ban promotional toys served with food that does not meet strict nutritional standards, following a similar move in nearby Santa Clarita in April.

PogMoThoin

Kids don't walk into McDonalds and buy Happy Meals

chin_grin

It's not mah fault! Ahm just beeee-ug boned. Beee-sides how ahm s'posed to say no to Mr Potato-head face 'ere. Aw lookit. <jiggles>

Adam

fucking bitch.

AntiMatter

She's got a point, imo, in pursuing the case for the greater good.

Good luck to her.

orourkeda

whoopsadaisydoodles wrote: »

Why is it so difficult for so many members of our society to take responsbility for themselves?

This goes a great deal of the way to answering this. Ally this to the fact that a lot of people are just too stupid to be let out on their own and you have a lethal cocktail

FatherLen

chin_grin wrote: »

It's not mah fault! Ahm just beeee-ug boned. Beee-sides how ahm s'posed to say no to Mr Potato-head face 'ere. Aw lookit. <jiggles>

american accent?

prinz

It's a stunt for one of two reasons...

1) Seeing an opportunity and trying to cash in, with some cities already coming down on toy with meal offers, she has a leg to stand on and could be some cash in it tbh, in which case, money-grabbing scamp.

2) She is trying to get the San Fran. decision applied state-wide in California, in which case, fire ahead luv. Every success etc.

chin_grin

I refer to the "You need a license for a dog, some people need a license for a child" arguement.

Dozen Wicked Words

AntiMatter wrote: »

She's got a point, imo, in pursuing the case for the greater good.

Good luck to her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY

mikedragon32

Whatever happened to responsible parenting?

idiot parent wrote:

McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.

Perhaps if the TV wasn't used as a childminding device maybe this wouldn't happen?

chin_grin

FatherLen wrote: »

american accent?

My attempt at.....yes. Southern drawl if you will.

Is anyone expecting this case to go far?

Mother-of-two VS Global Franchise.

Who wins..............hmm.

Duggy747

Kid: Daddy, I wanna go to McDonalds!!!!

Daddy: No




























Truly you must have the balls of steel to deal with such a formidable foe!

Antomus Prime

Typical American BS, people nowadays will try anything to get a bit of money. If you're kids are obsessed with McDonalds then it's up to YOU to say NO!!!!

thebigbiffo

hello. my name is the bigbiffo and my children do whatever i f'uckin tell them to do. would anybody who professes to act on my behalf for the greater good please **** off. thank you.

Cookie_Monster

but McDonalds toys are shite anyway

BrookieD

Its not that hard to say NO for crying out load. My fella is 8 in a week. Been to McDonalds maybe 10 times in total. Never had a fizzy drink in his life and is a very happy well adjusted child.

Stop blaming everyone and everything else and look in the mirror lady

Cookie_Monster

BrookieD wrote: »

Its not that hard to say NO for crying out load. My fella is 8 in a week. Been to McDonalds maybe 10 times in total. Never had a fizzy drink in his life and is a very happy well adjusted child.

not even a sup of Guinness, for shame

thebigbiffo

BrookieD wrote: »

Never had a fizzy drink in his life

are you the mother from about a boy?

ladypip

I think its a stunt she has seen a great big dollar sign coming from this.

Things like this really get my goat, of course children want happy meals they taste good and they come with toys, its a parents job to parent and not pander to their spoiled whiny overweight children!

If these people have their way they will have all fast food made so bland that they will shock horror have to cook for their children themselves!! So she is shooting herself and parents like her in the foot really.

Renn

they taste good

What what what?!

JustAddWater

American Psycho!

FatherLen wrote: »

american accent?

JerryHandbag

chin_grin wrote: »

It's not mah fault! Ahm just beeee-ug boned.

Yeah the arse bone is a hell of a size

dr.bollocko

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103
They already done banned em in San Fran.

ladypip

Renn wrote: »

What what what?!

I don't personally think they taste good but allot of children do!

BrookieD

thebigbiffo wrote: »

are you the mother from about a boy?

then best thing is i can see that he is one of the fittest kids around our area. always playing fottball etc... His friend every weekend on macD's and fizzy stuff can not ruyn more than 2 mins and is falling over knackerd....

Kimono-Girl

this woman needs to learn the word 'no',

dear god my 1 1/2 year old grabbed a packet of cadbury's chocolate animal biscuits from the cupboard and wanted them for breakfast, i said 'no' and oh look, she was happy to have rice krispies instead, children will push you for anything they can get, you as a parent need to say 'no'.

although now that i think of it maybe i should sue cadburys for putting child friendly animal pictures on their packs, it's getting their brand into her head! :eek:




:pac:

stovelid

Don't see why kids can't enjoy the odd Happy Meal. It's up to parents to limit the amount they have.

One thing that always amuses me is also the fact that only ever a few companies draw the ire of protestors, like Nike and McDonalds. Maybe it's just the sheer size of them but you often get protestor types that happily try to burn down a McDonalds but then readly consume all manner of other supposedly unethical commodoties in their life. Perhaps targetting a big enough figure of hate gives you enough conscience credits to wear/eat and buy all the other so-called First-World luxuries you could never countenance giving up?

Renn

BrookieD wrote: »

then best thing is i can see that he is one of the fittest kids around our area. always playing fottball etc... His friend every weekend on macD's and fizzy stuff can not ruyn more than 2 mins and is falling over knackerd....

Sounds like the other players are more equipped to play Gaa tbh.

PeakOutput

whoopsadaisydoodles wrote: »

Why is it so difficult for so many members of our society to take responsbility for themselves?l]

to be fair that woman does appear to be being pretty sensible, she isnt saying she cant say no to her kids and she must bring them to mcdonalds, she is saying that it isnt right for them be marketed to like that and for them to be asking her to go mcdonalds to get the toys and i think she is right.

its the grossly overweight mothers who have grossly overweight kids because they are too lazy to cook for them who then cry out in outrage that they didnt know mcdonalds was bad for you that are the problem.

theteal

Could this lead to the end of the kinder egg?!

Snake Plisken

Googled her name and came back with this on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/people/Monet-Parham/1574445891

Big Momma

stovelid

theteal wrote: »

Could this lead to the end of the kinder egg?!

Or the Ferrero Rocher egg?

Can they be prosecuted for inculclating imrpessionable punters with unrealistic bourgeois aspirations vis-a-vis silver-service ambassadorial parties they can never hope to be invited to due to the draconian strictures of the class system?

Dozen Wicked Words

theteal wrote: »

Could this lead to the end of the kinder egg?!

Well thanks for ruining my day, I am going to go and stockpile as many as I can afford now just in case your post gives anyone the idea. I only have one weird dog to get in my weird dog collection.

chin_grin

theteal wrote: »

Could this lead to the end of the kinder egg?!

"The egg of numbing inevitability" according to Bill Bailey?

Toys in them used to be great. I mean it took all of ten minutes to put the thing together and play with it for five before realising it was crap. But now they're premoulding pieces of sh!te. Poor kids.

brummytom

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Googled her name and came back with this on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/people/Monet-Parham/1574445891

Big Momma

Well, she looks like she'd be a responsible and mature parent

Snake Plisken

Also found out she is working for the government I hope McDonald fight hard on this. This blog sums it up best
http://www.popehat.com/2010/12/15/monet-parham-lee-is-a-bad-parent-monet-parham-lee-is-a-weakling-monet-parham-lee-blames-mcdonalds-for-her-weakness-and-her-poor-parenting-skills-monet-parham-lee-is-a-liar-or-at-least-deceptive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A Popehat %28Popehat%29

Monet Parham-Lee is suing McDonalds because she cannot say “NO” to her six year old daughter Maya.

In a call with reporters, Monet Parham, a Sacramento mother of two, said she was bringing the case because of the constant requests for McDonald’s Happy Meals.

“I don’t think it’s OK to entice children with Happy Meals with the promise of a toy,” she said, adding that she tries to hold her daughters, 6 and 2, to monthly visits to the fast-food chain. But she said their requests increased this summer, thanks to the popularity of “Shrek Forever After.” Collecting all of the toys offered in conjunction with the movie would require weekly visits, she said.

“Needless to say, my answer was no,” she said. “And as usual, pouting ensued and a little bit of a disagreement between us. This doesn’t stop with one request. It’s truly a litany of requests.”
Monet Parham is really Monet Parham-Lee. Monet Parham-Lee is the name that Monet Parham uses professionally. Monet Parham-Lee is represented in the suit by attorneys affiliated with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Meaning Ralph Nader. Monet Parham-Lee is an employee of the California Department of Public Health. Monet Parham-Lee works in the “Cancer Prevention and Nutrition Section” of the California Department of Public Health.

Meaning that Monet Parham-Lee is tasked, professionally, by the State of California with ensuring that Californians eat their vegetables. The power that the State of California grants Monet Parham-Lee evidently is not enough. Monet Parham-Lee is taking the law into her own hands, to ensure that not only her own children eat their vegetables, but that everyone else is forced to make their children eat vegetables. Because without toys, Happy Meals become Unhappy Meals.

And Unhappy Meals mean vegetables.

CSPI director of litigation Stephen Gardner said that the group knows McDonald’s isn’t the only fast-food chain that sells meals with toys, but targeted McDonald’s because it is the biggest. He added that the group has had conversations with other chains, including Burger King, which it has not threatened to sue.

“We’re not trying to force McDonald’s to sell apples and sprouts,” Gardner said. “We’re just trying to stop McDonalds from marketing to 3-year-olds.”
This is a class action, allegedly, but Monet Parham-Lee is not the mother every three year old in California. Still, she claims standing to bring suit on behalf of all three year olds, and their parents. Thus bringing the idea of a “Nanny State” to its logical extreme.

This is also a tort action. Monet Parham-Lee is suing because, we’re led to believe, her six year old daughter Maya harasses her on a daily basis for plastic Shreks. Monet Parham-Lee, evidently, is suing for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Her emotional distress is caused by the fact that her six year old daughter, Maya, will not stop hectoring her about these plastic Shreks.

I have a suggestion for Monet Parham-Lee. I have several suggestions in fact:

1.Tell your six year old daughter Maya to shut the **** up. And eat her damned vegetables.
2.Buy the damned Happy Meal on the way home from work, then throw out the hamburger and fries. Give Maya the plastic Shrek. A Happy Meal costs two dollars or something. You don’t have two dollars? You’re an overpaid state employee in a state that’s going bankrupt because of people like you. You can afford it.
3.If you want to see emotional distress, wait until your six year old daughter Maya is old enough to Google herself. And her mom. So you can explain to her what the word “****” means. Because this post is NEVER GOING TO GO AWAY.
Of course this suit isn’t being filed because Maya Parham-Lee eats too many damned Happy Meals. Or because she can’t get her plastic Shrek. Or because Monet Parham-Lee is so damned weak that she’s suffered ACTIONABLE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS from telling her daughter, six year old Maya, “No.”

Maya Parham-Lee, the six year old daughter of Monet Parham-Lee, has probably never eaten a Happy Meal in her life. I’ll bet she’s eaten thousands of Unhappy Meals: wheat germ, carrots, whey, lentils, spirulina, oats, and raw, uncooked hay.

All of it steamed or boiled. Except for the raw hay.

It’s been filed because Monet Parham-Lee, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, want to control what everyone eats. But they lack the persuasive skills to convince California voters to ban cheeseburgers, french fries, lard, sugar, alcohol, caffeine, and all of the other things that make a meal truly Happy.

None of the stories I’ve seen on this mentions “Sacramento mother of two” Monet Parham-Lee’s employment. I’m guessing that Monet Parham-Lee, and her lawyers, didn’t feel the need to mention it. But it’s material to the story. In fact, it’s the most material part of the story.

“GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IN CHARGE OF VEGETABLE EATING SUES TO STOP MEAT!” lacks a certain punch. It would be like printing a story to the effect that cows are demanding Americans eat mor chik’n.

And Monet Parham-Lee will never collect a penny unless McDonald’s caves to a baseless suit. Which I sincerely hope it won’t. Because I’d love to give Monet Parham-Lee’s six year old daughter Maya something else to read about in a year or so.

“SACRAMENTO MOTHER OF TWO ORDERED TO PAY LEGAL FEES AS SANCTION FOR FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT!” Now that has a ring to it.

Via Ira Stoll, who has more to say on this sort of lawsuit as a culture war between the sort of people parodied at “Stuff White People Like” and everyone else in America

conorhal

Well, we do live in a society ruled by a liberal elite that are intent on infantilizing our culture by removing the concepts of culpability and personal responsibility from out language.
You're not a horn dog you're a sex addict, you're not stupid, your teachers have simply failed to realize you potential, your not a brat you're suffering from ADD and of course you're not a greedy porker, but a product of a culture that places and emphasis on consumption above physical wellbeing.... Jesus wept....

THAT SAID.. I wholeheartedly agree with her principle, the fast food industry subtly places the emphasis on the toy rather then the food in it's promotions, it's a toy with food rather than food with a toy. I think it sets a bad example for children to associate crap food with a reward. I remember that it used to be that I would to have to eat my greens if I wanted my desert, not eat my hamburger, and I can't help but wonder if a toy wasn't involved if kids would give a toss about going to McDonalds?

Snakeblood

brummytom wrote: »

Well, she looks like she'd be a responsible and mature parent

Is that her?

chin_grin

conorhal wrote: »

Well, we do live in a society ruled by a liberal elite that are intent on infantilizing our culture by removing the concepts of culpability and personal responsibility from out language.
You're not a horn dog you're a sex addict, you're not stupid, your teachers have simply failed to realize you potential, your not a brat you're suffering from ADD and of course you're not a greedy porker, but a product of a culture that places and emphasis on consumption above physical wellbeing.... Jesus wept....

THAT SAID.. I wholeheartedly agree with her principle, the fast food industry subtly places the emphasis on the toy rather then the food in it's promotions, it's a toy with food rather than food with a toy. I think it sets a bad example for children to associate crap food with a reward. I remember that it used to be that I would to have to eat my greens I you wanted my desert, not a hamburger.

So, what you're saying is if we run an electric current through the toys..............Good Lord! It may just work!

Also the <colour = black> tag doesn't bode well for the Black theme boards. Admins, I'm looking in your general direction!

FatherLen

Snakeblood wrote: »

Is that her?

that cant be her. thats a cartoon and everybody knows cartoons arent real.


i wish cartoons were real.

chin_grin

FatherLen wrote: »

that cant be her. thats a cartoon and everybody knows cartoons arent real.


i wish cartoons were real.

Lemme guess. Jessica Rabbit was the first toon that you thought of..........




.............me too.

Buford T Justice

'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.'

Whats next, is she going to sue the television networks because their ads get into the kiddies heads?

Or no, wait, can she sue her children for deliberately putting her in a position where she has to say no?

Dipstick.

brummytom

Snakeblood wrote: »

Is that her?

Who knows. Wouldn't have thought 'Monet' would be a very common first name in the US.

And I must say, when I read the OP, that's exactly how I pictured her

dolphin city

only in america

El Weirdo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

not even a sup of Guinness, for shame

If you're drinking fizzy Guinness, I'd find another local.

fakearms123

Must read with American accent

Kid: "Papa I wont one of thems Happy Mealses right now"

Father: "But Jake I already bought you a Playstation 360 and a Wii coooonsole, for heaven sake son you been eatin Hershey bars all day now, god damnit!"

Kid: "Papa do you know my struggles as a middle class suburban white kid! You don't do you, I have to settle with 30 metre swimming pool in my back garden when you damn well know I was expecting a 50 metre pool with a god damn jacuzzi! You knew that Papa!"

Father: "Listen Jake I know life is tough..."

Kid: "You know nothing about life Papa, I get dropped to school in a god damn crappy Jaguar and the other kids arrive in Bentleys, I'm a god damn laughing stock Papa!"

Father: "Your right son, how could I be so naive, I think I have been distracted these past few days since your mother got those breast implants, lets take you to McDonalds for that Happy Meal, whatcha say?"

Kid: "Papa your the best! And to think that I was so p-ed off that I was just about to go up onto those interwebs and post my vlog about you, I love you Papa"

Morlar

AntiMatter wrote: »

She's got a point, imo, in pursuing the case for the greater good.

Good luck to her.

I disagree with subverting the law to achieve a goal even if you believe you are right.

However in this case I think she genuinely has a point. There is no reason why Personal responsibility and Corporate responsibility can not co-exsist. They are bad for you and DO intentionally market to children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339088/Happy-meal-lawsuit-Mum-Monet-Parham-sues-McDonalds-marketing-children.html

McDonald’s is facing a two-pronged attack from an angry parent and a consumer health organisation, who hope they can stop the fast-food giant using toys to market its Happy Meals.

The Center for Science has teamed up with Monet Parham after the mother-of-two sued McDonald’s yesterday, claiming it is violating several consumer protection laws.

They believe that the company’s Happy Meals marketing tempts vulnerable youngsters into the chains just for the toys, and in turn makes them obese and addicted to poor quality, high-fat junk food.

The main reason Mrs Parham’s six-year-old daughter, Maya, asks to go to McDonald’s is to get toys based on Barbie, i-Carly, Shrek, or Strawberry Shortcake.

The Sacramento mother said: 'What kids see as a fun toy, I now realise is a sophisticated, hi-tech marketing scheme that's designed to put McDonald's between me and my daughters.

'For the sake of other parents and their children, I want McDonald's to stop interfering with my family.

‘This litany of requests [to eat at McDonald's] is draining and very frustrating for children. I would like this practice to stop.’

Mrs Parham's lawyers, who filed the lawsuit in state court in San Francisco yesterday, have asked that it be certified as a class action and CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner said: ‘The lawsuit is about the change, not the money.

‘[McDonald's is engaged in a] highly sophisticated scheme to use the bait of toys to exploit children's developmental immaturity and subvert parental authority.

‘McDonald's advertising of Happy Meals with toys is deceptive and unfair to children, unfair to parents, and in violation of California law.

‘Under the law, you don't blame the victim of deceptive practices.’

Mr Gardner said McDonald's is a bigger offender than tobacco companies when it comes to unfair marketing because it targets very young children with tantalising toys and advertisements.

The CSPI has a track record of getting the food industry to change its practices.

Snack and cereal maker Kellogg Co. agreed to a settlement with the centre that set nutrition standards for the foods Kellogg's could advertise to children.

KFC agreed to phase out oils high in trans fats after the centre dropped a lawsuit over KFC's use of partially hydrogenated oils.

McDonald’s has been in the firing line lately from public health officials, parents and lawmakers who are frustrated with rising childhood obesity rates and weak anti-obesity efforts from restaurant operators, which are largely self-regulated.

Those critics say poorly funded education campaigns don't have a chance against fast-food companies, which according to a recent report spent more than $4.2billion in 2009 on marketing and advertising.

Such frustrations recently prompted lawmakers in San Francisco and nearby Santa Clara County to pass laws that will require restaurant kids' meals to meet nutritional standards before they can be sold with toys.

San Francisco recently prohibited toys in meals with more than 600 calories or more than 35 per cent of their calories from fat.

McDonald's began distributing Happy Meals in America 31 years ago, in 1979, and will defend its brand, reputation and food.

'We stand on our 30-year track record of providing a fun experience for kids and families at McDonald's,' the company said in a statement.

'We are proud of our Happy Meals and intend to vigorously defend our brand, our reputation and our food,' said McDonald's spokesman Bridget Coffing.

'We listen to our customers, and parents consistently tell us they approve of our Happy Meals.'

chin_grin

fakearms123 wrote: »

Must read with American accent

Kid: "Papa I wont one of thems Happy Mealses right now"

Father: "But Jake I already bought you a Playstation 360 and a Wii coooonsole, for heaven sake son you been eatin Hershey bars all day now, god damnit!"

Kid: "Papa do you know my struggles as a middle class suburban white kid! You don't do you, I have to settle with 30 metre swimming pool in my back garden when you damn well know I was expecting a 50 metre pool with a god damn jacuzzi! You knew that Papa!"

Father: "Listen Jake I know life is tough..."

Kid: "You know nothing about life Papa, I get dropped to school in a god damn crappy Jaguar and the other kids arrive in Bentleys, I'm a god damn laughing stock Papa!"

Father: "Your right son, how could I be so naive, I think I have been distracted these past few days since your mother got those breast implants, lets take you to McDonalds for that Happy Meal, whatcha say?"

Kid: "Papa your the best! And to think that I was so p-ed off that I was just about to go up onto those interwebs and post my vlog about you, I love you Papa"

Why am I picturing the Father as Kid Rock?

Although I doubt that he'd know the word 'naive'.

FatherLen

^^^^^^
tl:dr

damn

i love the toys in happy meals. who does this bitch think she is

gavmcg92

"A mother-of-two from California has launched a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's, claiming the toys given out with Happy Meals unfairly lure children into eating unhealthy food."

What a load of bull... Parents have become afraid to say no to their children. Sounds to me like someone is looking for a bit of easy money! Reminds me of the case taken out by a mother who sued McDonalds for making her kid fat! lol