McDonald’s to Kids: Apple Slices For All, Whether or Not You Want Them
28th July 2011
Every Happy Meal shall henceforth contain apple slices, according to a decree from McDonald’s HQ today, which boasts that the change is part of “a comprehensive plan [that] aims to help customers—especially families and children—make nutrition-minded choices whether visiting McDonald’s or eating elsewhere.”
Well, (a) it doesn’t help customers, it forces customers; apple slices were always an option; and (b) the definition of ‘nutrition-minded’ is that of external advocacy groups, not the company or the purchasers.
And while USA Today reports that the company is claiming the apple incursion is “absolutely not” a response to growing regulatory threats from local, state, and federal governments, the Associated Press is reporting that First Lady Michelle Obama is pleased.
In other words, they caved to outside pressure, and lied to save face. Practicing to be a government agency, you might say.
And always the threat of binding legal requirements lurk in the background.
Sort of a metaphor for life.
McDonald’s changes are voluntary, but they happened because McDonald’s exists in a world where trans fat bans are a reality, and junk food taxes are fodder for The New York Times op-ed page. Regulating food intended for kids is an easier sell, but the state is really just taking away parents’ choices. And once adults are no longer free to choose for their kids, why let them go on choosing for themselves?
Why, indeed? Freedom of choice isn’t a ‘progressive’ value unless it comes to killing your unborn child.
July 28th, 2011 at 11:54
..and around the country there are teams of lawyers desperately seeking a 5-yr-old that’s allergic to apples.
July 28th, 2011 at 14:20
If MacDonald’s chooses to include FREE apple slices in their Happy Meals, why is that a cause for concern for you? Aren’t they free to do with their money whatever they feel is in their own interests? Last I knew, there was no mandate forcing anyone to actually EAT the apple slices.
July 28th, 2011 at 20:41
The point is that, absent outside pressure, they wouldn’t have done it. This is not ‘free to do with their own money whatever they feel is in their own interest’, but ‘what is the minimum we can do to keep the buttinskys and the government off our asses while we try to offer a product that somebody will want to buy’. That’s a problem for me, even if it might not be for you.
July 28th, 2011 at 21:47
Um…if MacDonald’s feels that keeping the buttinskys off their back is in their best business interest, then I don’t see that there’s any distinction to be made. It may be a problem for you, but evidently MacDonald’s doesn’t think it’s much of a problem for them. And neither do I.