Ronald McDonald Does Not Reside in Flavor Country
Various news reports have it that some pressure activist groups want to ban the toy from the Happy Meal, hoping that removing the toy will decrease the amount of food eaten at McDonald's.
I remember back in the good old days how the success of the Happy Meal (introduced in 1979) caused just about every other chain to introduce a meal for young people consisting of entree-side-drink-nifty prize, a sort of artery-clogging arms race, if you will. And the recent hyperbole even went so far to portray Ronald McDonald as the fast food equivalent to Joe Camel, without a hint of irony.
I also remember, back in those good old days, that a trip to the McDonald's was a treat. Either we were staying with Nana and it was Saturday afternoon/evening, or it was a reward for doing awesome at school, or so on. It didn't replace actual food prepared and cooked in the kitchen of Chez Eberle. If you substitute fast food for actual food, you really can't complain when your waistband starts to shrink, and you start to want honey mustard sauce on everything.
When you're a kid, you like the idea of a burger and fries. I can tell you with earnestness that I never once had two percent milk or apple slices or mandarin orange wedges or anything. I can eat that at home, right? Adding choices that no one is going to pick does nothing but cost you money...but if you ask a kid which of the little action figure toys he wants...you're golden. The food was merely the price of entry for the little Transformer, or movie tie-in toy, or Barbie doll.
I realize that there is now a franchise on just about every corner, and it is irritating to listen to the kids in the back seat caterwauling about how they'd just love to hit up the Dairy Queen, and that they'll hold their breath until they could understudy for Violet Beauregarde, and that they'll loathe you forever. Too bad. Be a parent, say "no, I've already planned dinner tonight, we can go there (someday when Johnny and Judy have long since forgotten), so you'll have to wait." I hear all the stories about how the parent just couldn't say no (courtesy Penn & Teller's show on Showtime, and various other news articles on this topic) and the parent was somehow compelled to pull into the Burger Thing parking lot to load up their bellies with calorie-soaked food.
Just like everything else, I believe that moderation is good, regulation is less good. If parents don't buy the food-with-toy-meal, they have nothing to worry about. Maybe the franchise closes up there, or maybe they replace burger and fries with salmon and broccoli florets. Maybe nothing changes and they hope that some othe family will make their daily stop to big up six double burgers and a dumpster of large fries. Removing the toy will remove the impetus for some of the kids to say "I WANNA HAPPY MEAL NOW!" but there will always be someone else right behind who doesn't have the time, means, inclination or money to eat healthy, so while I understand the position of the toy extractors, I don't agree with it.
I remember back in the good old days how the success of the Happy Meal (introduced in 1979) caused just about every other chain to introduce a meal for young people consisting of entree-side-drink-nifty prize, a sort of artery-clogging arms race, if you will. And the recent hyperbole even went so far to portray Ronald McDonald as the fast food equivalent to Joe Camel, without a hint of irony.
I also remember, back in those good old days, that a trip to the McDonald's was a treat. Either we were staying with Nana and it was Saturday afternoon/evening, or it was a reward for doing awesome at school, or so on. It didn't replace actual food prepared and cooked in the kitchen of Chez Eberle. If you substitute fast food for actual food, you really can't complain when your waistband starts to shrink, and you start to want honey mustard sauce on everything.
When you're a kid, you like the idea of a burger and fries. I can tell you with earnestness that I never once had two percent milk or apple slices or mandarin orange wedges or anything. I can eat that at home, right? Adding choices that no one is going to pick does nothing but cost you money...but if you ask a kid which of the little action figure toys he wants...you're golden. The food was merely the price of entry for the little Transformer, or movie tie-in toy, or Barbie doll.
I realize that there is now a franchise on just about every corner, and it is irritating to listen to the kids in the back seat caterwauling about how they'd just love to hit up the Dairy Queen, and that they'll hold their breath until they could understudy for Violet Beauregarde, and that they'll loathe you forever. Too bad. Be a parent, say "no, I've already planned dinner tonight, we can go there (someday when Johnny and Judy have long since forgotten), so you'll have to wait." I hear all the stories about how the parent just couldn't say no (courtesy Penn & Teller's show on Showtime, and various other news articles on this topic) and the parent was somehow compelled to pull into the Burger Thing parking lot to load up their bellies with calorie-soaked food.
Just like everything else, I believe that moderation is good, regulation is less good. If parents don't buy the food-with-toy-meal, they have nothing to worry about. Maybe the franchise closes up there, or maybe they replace burger and fries with salmon and broccoli florets. Maybe nothing changes and they hope that some othe family will make their daily stop to big up six double burgers and a dumpster of large fries. Removing the toy will remove the impetus for some of the kids to say "I WANNA HAPPY MEAL NOW!" but there will always be someone else right behind who doesn't have the time, means, inclination or money to eat healthy, so while I understand the position of the toy extractors, I don't agree with it.