McDonalds has made alot of Millionaires..

AspenValley wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: [ I can't understand the thought process associated with someone deciding these things are a proper exercise of government power, it is a totally alien concept to me.

Again, while I don't agree with it, I DO understand it. It comes from people thinking that something else (in this case corporations and insidious, relentless advertising campaigns) has gotten too much power in their lives. It might not be a proper exercise of governmental powers, but when people feel powerless, they do the best they can to fight back, in a case like this by urging the government to wield their power against it.

It's really no different than when people don't like things their neighbor is doing but feel powerless to confront him personally. Instead, they will "borrow" the power of the government by calling the sheriff every time they have a party or park an inch over the property line, or making zoning complaints or barking dog complaints or whatever else he can think of to have the government bully the neighbor on his behalf. It may not be appropriate use of authority, but it happens every day.

Perhaps this is where people need to be re-educated or motivated? It is the consumer that has the power to do anything they wish to any corporation peddling a product. Simply don't buy it. The fact that kind of pressure has not been exerted is telling in itself. If so many people really were upset by what McDonalds has done, then there are lots of alternative fast food places for them to visit. Hence, one can only conclude that it is a self-serving agenda that someone is pushing for the "good" in the name of the people as opposed to what it really is. Personally, I think the problem lies with people who have given up the power to determine what it is they do and do not want. As individuals you have a choice to support or not to support a particular restaurant. Once the government gets involved, your choice is taken away from you. That I resent.

LadyJazzer wrote: "Da Gub'mint" did not mandate apple slices... McDonalds opted to do that on its own as a business decision... You know--the kind of business decision that companies make every day to entice their customers to buy their products.... Nothing got usurped...

McDonald’s: Apple Slices In Every Happy Meal

MIAMI (CBS4) — McDonald’s Corp. plans to make its Happy Meals healthier across the country, including South Florida.

The company announced that it is adding apples to all its Happy Meals and launching a nutrition-focused mobile phone app as part of a broader health push.

The changes underscore how the restaurant industry is reacting to the demands of customers and regulators who blame it for health ills ranging from childhood obesity to diabetes.

But thanks for playing.

Well, you quoted only what served your purpose, not the whole truth. The fact remains McDonalds was reacting to pressure as you noted, but it involves parents, consumer groups and local lawmaker. What is not clear is how many parents and consumer groups pressured McDonalds. Nor does it outline the impact getting the local government involved. Do these people really represent all people? Hell no, but their considered opinion of what is best for everyone prevails. As I understand it, this is in response to a local protest, not national. It doesn't really matter. McDonalds has bowed to their pressure and as such has responded since it deemed it significant. I'd rather see the pressure from a national boycott that truly reflected the will of the people as opposed to a few advocates.

McDonald's -- which has been taking heat from parents, consumer groups and local lawmakers over the nutritional content and marketing of Happy Meals -- said it would start making the changes in September and the new Happy Meals would be available in all of its 14,000 U.S. restaurants by the end of the first quarter of 2012.

What it WASN'T was response to a federal law, or a state law. (The Santa Clara County regulation did pass, but somehow I don't think it spread beyond Santa Clara County.) Was it "pressure" from consumers? Yes. As you said, "It really doesn't matter." But what it WASN'T was the "gub'mint" forcing them to do anything. Ergo, more outrage-of-the-day b.s.

Well, consumers and the threat of having a lawsuit filed, which the company would have to spend lots of money defending in addition to the additional time, effort and money that would then be required to spent for a positive PR campaign before, during and after the lawsuit. Now, why a company should have to defend itself in a lawsuit being filed by a group of folks who seek to have the courts force an end to toys in Happy Meals is a whole other story, but let's not pretend for an instant that it doesn't figure into the decision that the company ultimately made with regards to replacing fries with apple slices nationwide.

So, let's not pretend for an instant that the Gub'mint forced them to do anything... It didn't. The company made a BUSINESS DECISION based on the situation at the time, and based on bad PR, they made a choice to do something different.

Another outrage-of-the-day lie about "what the gub'mint did"... B.S.

The threat was that the government would force them to do something as a result of losing a promised lawsuit. When you have juries who will give an old lady millions because they feel sorry for her after she spilled a cup of hot coffee in her lap, anything is possible if a lawsuit is allowed to go to trial.

So, let's not pretend for an instant that the Gub'mint forced them to do anything... It didn't. The company made a BUSINESS DECISION based on the situation at the time, and based on bad PR, they made a choice to do something different.

Another outrage-of-the-day lie about "what the gub'mint did"... B.S.