McDonald’s Trims Its Happy Meal
By STEPHANIE STROM
Published: July 26, 2011
Bowing to pressure from health advocates and parents, McDonald’s is putting the Happy Meal on a diet.
David Paul Morris/Getty Images
A Happy Meal in San Francisco, which banned the inclusion of toys in children's meals unless nutritional requirements were met.
Post a Comment on the Prescriptions BlogMultimedia
Related in Opinion
The company announced Tuesday that it would more than halve the amount of French fries and add fruit to its popular children’s meal in an effort to reduce the overall calorie count by 20 percent.
But McDonald’s appeasement only went so far. A toy will still come with each Happy Meal despite criticism that the trinkets, often with tie-ins to movies like “Toy Story,” foster a powerful connection between children and the often calorie-laden meals.
While Happy Meals account for less than 10 percent of all McDonald’s sales, the signature box and its contents — first introduced in 1979 — have become a favorite target in recent years. Lawmakers and consumers have rallied around breaking that childhood link between toys and fast food, with the efforts increasing as Michelle Obama and national public health officials point to the estimated 17 percent rate of obesity among the nation’s youths.
San Francisco, for example, has banned the inclusion of toys in children’s meals unless certain nutritional requirements are met. A New York City councilman is proposing a similar law.
Other restaurant chains have gone further than McDonald’s in acceding to calls for improving the fare on children’s menus and eliminating marketing appeals. In June, Jack in the Box announced the end of toys in its children’s meals, and this month, Burger King, IHOP and more than a dozen other restaurant chains backed an effort led by the National Restaurant Association to serve and promote healthier options for youngsters.
“McDonald’s is not giving the whole loaf, but it is giving a half or two thirds of a loaf,” said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is representing a woman in California who is suing McDonald’s for including toys in its Happy Meals. “This is an important step in the right direction.”
McDonald’s made it clear that it was changing the composition of Happy Meals in response to parental and consumer pressure. It also pledged to reduce the sodium content in all of its foods by 15 percent, with the exceptions of soda and desserts. It set a deadline of 2015 for limiting salt, and said it would spend the rest of this decade cutting back on sugars, saturated fats and calories and making adjustments to portion sizes.
The new Happy Meals will be introduced in September and rolled out across the company’s 14,000 restaurants by April 2012. They will all include apple slices, but in a smaller amount of three to five slices than the current eight to 10 offered as an alternative. (The Apple Dippers also will be renamed after the company phases out the caramel dipping sauce, according to Tuesday’s announcement.)
“It’s a trade-off between everybody getting a small portion and 10 percent of kids getting a larger portion, which is better than nothing and maybe will accustom kids to eating fresh fruits and vegetables when they go out to eat,” Mr. Jacobson said.
Parents will have the option of requesting more fruit or, possibly at a later date, vegetables instead of fries. McDonald’s will also offer a fat-free chocolate milk option, along with the option of low-fat milk or the traditional soda. The price is not expected to change.
Today’s Happy Meal with chicken nuggets has 520 calories and 26 grams of fat, and the reconstituted version, with 1 percent milk, will total 410 calories and 19 grams of fat, according to the company.
The company said it had experimented with eliminating French fries altogether from the boxes, but that generated a lot of customer complaints. Danya Proud, a spokeswoman for the company, said that McDonald’s tests also found that parents wanted soda among the drinks available, too. “That’s what we’ve really felt all along, that ultimately, it’s a parent decision to make about their child’s well-being,” she said.
McDonald’s has long offered parents the option of asking for fruit rather than fries, although a study by Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity found that only 11 percent took advantage of that option.
While some critics of fast-food and public health officials praised the moves (Mrs. Obama called them “positive steps”), others complained that McDonald’s did not go far enough. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University and an outspoken critic of the food industry, called the changes a “sham,” in part because McDonald’s is not doing more to limit soda with the Happy Meal.
“They’re going to get huge publicity for this — an ounce less of French fries,” Dr. Nestle said. “I’m not impressed.”
In fact, when apples are added to the Happy Meal with a soda, the amount of sugar in the new package increases.
As part of an effort to provide better access to nutritional information about its foods, the company has developed its first mobile application for the public. McDonald’s executives also plan to tour the country to hear directly from consumers about their concerns.
“We are doing what we can,” Ms. Proud said. “We have to evolve with the times, and the times require us and our customers are asking us to offer more options.”
Ms. Proud said that even with the changes, the Happy Meal would not meet San Francisco’s requirements, which demand both a fruit and vegetable serving, among other things, before a company can include a toy with a child’s meal.
Public health experts expect the company to mount a legal challenge to that ordinance before it goes into effect in December, but Ms. Proud said McDonald’s was still evaluating its options.
Discussion Questions:
ReplyDelete1. One of the most common critiques of the McDonald’s Happy Meal has revolved around its inclusion of the toy, which supposedly “foster[s] a powerful connection between children and the often calorie-laden meals.” Do you agree? Do you think that the removal of toys from fast-food meals would sufficiently sever this connection, or is McDonald’s more deeply ingrained in our youth culture?
2. In Michael Pollan’s article “The Way We Live Now” (from our 8/25 reading), he makes a connection between obesity and super-sized portions. McDonald’s has proclaimed that it will “spend the rest of this decade cutting back on sugars, saturated fats and calories and making adjustments to portion sizes.” If other fast-food restaurants follow suit, are you optimistic that this will have an effect on America’s level of obesity in the coming years? What other transformations would need to occur to see a significant decrease in obesity levels?
1- i do agree. i think that this connection is subliminal but definitely strengthens the ties to the feelings a child may have about going to a food place like McDonalds.
ReplyDelete2-Cutting back the US corn subsidization. Ending obesity will take more than a diet coke and a run around the "playplace", it will take healthier food and healthier choices by americans.
3...wouldn't the parent who was concerned about their child's nutrition decide against taking their kids out for fast food?
1) The toy in the happy meal is iconic- when I was a kid, the only reason I wanted a happy meal was to have the toy. However, if getting a toy was not just contingent on mom or dad's paying for the meal, but also on having to eat healthy food that is in it, it does seem that getting a toy with a healthy happy meal will encourage kids to eat their fruits and veggies. So I would conjecture that yes, including toys only in healthy meals will have some effect in curbing the consequences of an healthy diet.
ReplyDelete2) The steps McDonald's is taking in making their products healthier does make me optimistic about the effects this will have on America's levels of obesity. But perhaps all the people who eat McDonald's will stop wanting it if it becomes healthier. Even so, it appears that there is a general trend lately in making Americans more health-conscious, and it must be a substantive trend if mega-fast food chains are bending themselves to it.
The biggest obstacle as I see it lies in the connection between cost and nutrition level. McDonald's can only become marginally more healthy without raising its prices. If it were to become completely healthy, with zero additives, zero trans-fats, etc., it would no longer be economically viable. The way to change this is to have the government stop incentivizing grain surplus, and to regulate the economy such that it is more economically viable to produce organic or natural food products. So long as the economy continues to foster mass production, mass consumption, and non-localized food markets, the unhealthy, over-weight epidemic will most likely continue. In general it seems that onsumers mostly want what's cheap, and until this equates to what is healthy, people will continue to eat, well, crap.
1) I think that including a toy in a happy meal may make a kid want go to McDonald's instead of another restaurant. Once a decision has been made to eat at McDonald's though, I do not think the toy affects their second decision of eating something that is alternatively healthier; I don't know many kids that would order a salad. So yes, I think it influences kids to get their parents to go to McDonald's for them. One positive though, by choosing a happy meal kids are typically eating smaller portions than adults.
ReplyDelete2) More restaurants are starting to offer relatively healthier food choices and I think this will help people who know how to healthfully eat out, but I do not think it will ultimately result in a large change in obesity levels. Many of the healthier products are significantly more expensive than the unhealthy ones. I do not think everybody who visits a fast food restaurant and wants to eat healthy is always willing to pay more money.
1. I think the toy is not the key issue with the "calorie-laden meals" because connections could just as easily be made between toys and a healthy Happy Meal. If Happy Meals continue to become healthier, the inclusion of a toy could foster positive thoughts about health-conscious foods as well. Even so, I don't think the toy is as important as people say; even as a child, I could recognize when a Happy Meal toy was just an undesirable piece of junk but I did not associate it much with the meal itself.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think this will have a significant impact because even when a fast food restaurant claims to have cut back on sugars, fats, etc., a hamburger is still a hamburger and it will never be a "healthy" food. As long as families continue eating fast food/junk food for every meal, obesity will stay the same. There needs to be more food education starting in elementary schools that will get kids excited about cooking at home with fresh, healthy foods...and I'm aware of the money issue, but people need to see that buying foods that will last for multiple meals can be much more cost efficient than eating out for every meal.
1. I honestly think that when it comes to McDonalds, many people take it too far when stating negative opinions and/or searching for an opportunity to sue. In my opinion if the toy was just one day taken out, parents would be irate that their child was being "jipped" and claim that McDonald's is cutting costs on behalf of a child's toy. My point being that no matter what McDonald's does in this case, parents are still going to find a reason to complain. A happy meal should not be a typical meal option for a child, and parents should know that. Growing up eating in any fast food restaurant was a treat for me, including the toy. Even as a kid however I knew happy meals were not healthy but my parents just said that we could occasionally eat "bad" and it is okay. So yes, I knew it was not healthy, as every child should. I honestly feel like all of this talk about the connection with the toy and obesity is over-analyzation. Parents look for a way to blame their child's obesity or poor health on the fact that a toy comes with the meal. Well, if there is that big of an issue and they don't want that "connection" made, why feed that to your child in the first place? Cutting out the toy will not sever this "connection" between the two, not eating these foods in the first place or the child understanding the food is unhealthy will. Parent's cannot continue to put the responsibility of healthy food options on McDonald's. Instead they need to take on the responsibility to not eat there or cut back their child's intake. After all it's not as if the child drive's the mini van through the dry through themselves, parent's have the option to feed their child unhealthy fast food and the toy is the least of worries.
ReplyDelete2. I really don't think fast food companies are all to blame for over all obesity. It's a choice to eat at them and it's no mystery that they are unhealthy. I think it's great that they are cutting back on "sugars, saturated fats, and calories" but then again will that make people think that McDonald's is actually a "healthy" option and increase the amount of people who eat there and how often? Portion sizes are the main issues in today's fast food industry and restaurants. But then again people always want more bang for their buck so consumers fuel this epidemic of growing portion sizes in a sense. People know that for 40 cents more (or however much) they can upgrade their size. Yes, it's not that expensive to upgrade but you still do have to pay and people are willing to so portion sizes grow on the menu. If these changes do happen I am not optimistic that this will have any effect on America's future obesity levels. Burgers, chicken nuggets, and fries will always have unhealthy fats and useless calories, so it's up to Americans to portion control and limit how often (if ever) they decide to eat fast food.
Other options to decrease obesity is to increase the amount of "real food" on the shelves of supermarkets and promote preparing meals at home as opposed to eating out. I'm not all too familiar with food policies but I know from personal experience that it is expensive to shop healthy. I'm not sure how to eradicate this issue but it would certainly help to lower the cost of "real food" so making something from scratch wouldn't cost 5 times more than buying it premade in a box. Also, more responsibility needs to be placed back on parents. Instead of ordering in/out, parent's need to put more emphasis on making food for the family. Cook with your kids, start a small garden with them, etc. Actions speak louder than words, parents shouldn't just tell their children what is healthy or unhealthy for them, they need to feed them healthy foods and prepare it with them to create lifetime habits of healthy eating.
1. I do not think that removing toys would have any affect on most children. Those children that only associate McDonalds' happy meals with toys eat there too much, but that is the fault of the parents and is likely to continue whether or not the happy meals include toys.
ReplyDelete2. Cutting the size of super-portions is theoretically a partial solution to the obesity problem in the United States, but unless people are willing to eat less and less frequently, obesity will remain the same or continue to gain ground. Also, the content of the food is as important as the amount, and foods loaded with smaller portions of unhealthy ingredients will still harmful. Nevertheless, cutting down portion size could encourage children to eat less.
I agree completely with what San Fransisco has done. I know when I was growing up, I couldn't have dessert or go play outside until I ate all my celery or carrots. I don't think kids should eat fast food at all. It is teaching them that food can just be "picked up" at a window and not how to prepare it themselves. Fast food makes us lazy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I understand the importance of making kids meals healthier, but what about the meals offered to adults? As mentioned above, only 10% of McDonald's sales is from Happy Meals, the other 90% is from meals sold to adults. I have seen "some" publicity as to making healthier options for adults, but not nearly as much as I have seen for kids. The bigger problem lies with obese adults who eat McDonald's daily, this should be the focus of calorie cutting.
I also agree with Ben F. about cutting the portion size. Eliminating the "SUPER SIZE" altogether wouldn't be a bad idea at all. If you look at the comparison of fast food sizes from now and from 30 years ago is appalling. We didn't need HUGE portions back then and we sure don't now.
David Peters here, just giving my two cents. I think this is ridiculous. If you don't want your children eating McDonald's food, then don't take them to McDonald's. It's your child; do your own parenting. As a boy, every great once in a while I would eat with my parents at a fast food place, but we seldom went. I could probably count the times on one hand. I grew up eating quite healthy and it's thanks to my parents, not "concerned citizens" or government meddling. If your kids want to go there for a toy then tell them "no." You're in control. I do think healthy alternatives are good, but McDonald's is a private business. They have the right to run their business in the way they see fit. We, as parents, have the right to raise our children as we see fit. P.S. I hate McDonald's; their food is nasty.
ReplyDeleteHey everyone,
ReplyDeleteThanks for contributing. If you are interested in viewing more about fast food, this interview with Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, expands on many of the issues in this article. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNwQXCniGkU&feature=related
1. I remember the toys being a pretty big deal when I was younger so I guess they still are. Remember Teeny Beanie Babies? People went crazy for those. But at the same time, I remember wanting a lot of toys when I was younger that my parents didn't get for me. It's that simple. Of course kids are going to want toys; they're kids. Does our country actually expect a 7 year old to know what's good for his body? It's not McDonald's fault. Blame the parents if anything. So what if your kid cries when you deny them McDonald's? They're kids. They'll like what you feed them enough of. But it is nice that McDonald's will add healthy options since sometimes parents just don't have the time to stop at the grocery store or prepare dinner. At least they can feel better about having to resort to McDonald's.
ReplyDelete2. As a college student I do eat out a lot. I go to class all day and work four evening shifts a week so eating well is pretty difficult. A lot of times I just want some fruit or something like that, but stores are either closed or I am simply too exhausted to run in to get something to eat, so I resort to fast food. I really enjoy the fact that a lot of chains are offering healthier options. Sure, sometimes I crave a burger, but a lot of times I do want to eat healthier. Now, I know people that eat fast food all the time but never gain any weight. They're just lucky I guess. But it's not really the chain's fault for making people obese. Nobody shoves it down their throat. Yes, it's delicious, but so are a lot of things. I'm not sure anybody was ever under the impression that McDonald's was GOOD for you, but people refuse to take responsibility for themselves. Just because McDonald's offers smaller sizes now doesn't mean people aren't going to just bump up a size when they order. It's all about the individual.
-Caitlin Wilson
1. A Happy Meal coming with a toy I feel is sadly something that our culture has come to recognize as normal. However, blaming our child obesity problem on McDonald's toy, or McDonald's in general for that matter is unrealistic and unfair, they are trying to run a successful business too. I think it is a great idea to only include the toy in healthy meal options, but I think the real problem lies in the consumer. McDonald's is one of the most successful food services in the world, so I think demanding change is a hard thing to ask such a successful business do, when they have done for years has made them successful in the first place.
ReplyDelete2. I am hopeful that these changes in portions and publicly popular restaurants will help educate the public on their health choices, but this process is going to take decades. Instead of changing our options as consumer, I think focus should be targeted on education and changing the way choose those options. Many Americans don't know any better, or just don't care. I think teaching exactly how severely diet options can effect your health in our school systems is more likely to make a change then just changing the options. If the options are changed, we would still find away to get what we want. In the perfect world we would decrease the desire to want the unhealthy option.
1. I think that kids make the choice to go to McDonalds, because they can get the toy. I would be surprised if kids like a fast food hamburger over a plate of healthy food back home. Kids maybe don’t even difference the taste between healthy or unhealthy, because when I was a kid, I remember I liked everything. The fact that the toy is included, attracts all these kids and also that drags their parents to consume McDonald’s and that becomes a vicious cycle.
ReplyDelete2.I don’t think this would change obesity levels. People addicted to fast food will keep eating that type of food and even if fast-food places cut their fat calories in the food, any hamburger from those places still will be unhealthy. Again, its really important to educate and tell kids that McDonalds or Burger King are places to go once in a while but not constantly.