SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A
mother of two from Sacramento, Calif., says that McDonald's uses toys as
bait to induce her kids to clamor to go to McDonald's and to develop a
preference for nutritionally poor Happy Meals. With the help of the
Center for Science in the Public Interest, today the mom, Monet Parham,
is filing a class action lawsuit
aimed at stopping McDonald's use of toys to market directly to young
children. The suit will be filed in California Superior Court in San
Francisco shortly after the court opens for business Wednesday morning.
According to Parham, 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. The food seems almost
beside the point to the kids, says Parham, because the toy monopolizes
the attention of Maya and her two-year-old sister Lauryn.
&
"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," Parham said. "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."
Documents cited by CSPI in the lawsuit show that the Parham family's experience isn't accidental. It is entirely by design.
"Go after kids," is how Roy Bergold, who headed
McDonald's advertising for 29 years as chief creative officer, described
the company's strategy in an article in QSR magazine. "Ray Kroc said
that if you had $1 to spend on marketing, spend it on kids. Why? Because
they can't get to your restaurant by themselves and they eat a lot."
Bergold also acknowledged in a separate QSR column that "companies have
found that kids are a lot more tempted by the toys than the food."
McDonald's "gets into the parents' wallets via the kids'
minds," according to an online presentation by Martin Lindstrom, who
advises McDonald's on branding and "neuromarketing."
And Joe Johnston, who was on the advertising-agency
team that developed the McDonald's Fun Meal, which pre-dated the Happy
Meal, bluntly explained the centrality of the toy to the meal's
marketing: "Yes, even then, we knew that we needed the toy to make it
work."
Fast-food companies-with McDonald's by far in the
lead-spent over $520 million in 2006 on advertising and toys to market
children's meals. Toy premiums made up almost three-quarters of those
expenses, totaling over $350 million.
According to the Institute of Medicine and the
American Psychological Association, kids as young as Maya do not have
the cognitive maturity to understand the persuasive intent of
advertising. Advertising that is not understood to be advertising is
inherently deceptive-an idea that CSPI's lawsuit points out is well
established in law.
"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, including the
California Unfair Competition Law," said CSPI litigation director Steve
Gardner.
Even though Happy Meals television advertising
shows brief glimpses of healthier products, such as Apple Dippers and
low-fat milk, the default options put into Happy Meal by McDonald's
employees are usually French fries and sugary sodas. In a CSPI study of
44 McDonald's outlets, French fries were automatically included in
Happy Meals 93 percent of the time. Soft drinks were the first choice
offered to customers 78 percent of the time.
According to CSPI, a reasonable lunch for a typical
sedentary four- to eight-year-old should not exceed a third of a day's
worth, or about 430 calories. Of the Happy Meal combinations that are
possible, only a handful fall under that threshold-and even those have
more than one-third of day's worth of sodium. But none of the Happy
Meals that are served with fries or a soda are healthy for children aged
four to eight, according to CSPI. A meal of a cheeseburger, fries, and
a Sprite has 640 calories, 7 grams of artery-clogging saturated fat,
and 35 grams-or 9 teaspoons-of sugar.
"McDonald's congratulates itself for meals that are
hypothetically possible, though it knows very well that it's mostly
selling burgers or chicken nuggets, fries, and sodas to very young
children," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "In other
words, McDonald's offerings consist mostly of fatty meat, fatty cheese,
French fries, white flour, and sugar-a narrow combination of foods that
promotes weight gain, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease-and may lead
to a lifetime of poor diets."
"What kids see as a fun toy, I now realize is a
sophisticated, high-tech marketing scheme that's designed to put
McDonald's between me and my daughters," Parham said. "For the sake of
other parents and their children, I want McDonald's to stop interfering
with my family."
In June, CSPI first notified
McDonald's it might be the target of a lawsuit. Repeatedly, CSPI
offered to meet with McDonald's to try to reach an agreement that would
avoid litigation, but McDonald's refused.
In anticipation of filing its suit, CSPI served McDonald's with a letter
on Tuesday instructing the company to preserve any documents in its
possession related to the use of toys to market Happy Meals to children.
Lawyers for Parham will seek to examine those documents in discovery
as the case proceeds. In addition to CSPI's Litigation Unit, Parham is
also represented by private attorney Richard Baker of Baker Law, P.C. in
Birmingham, Alabama.
CSPI's litigation unit
has taken on food marketing to children before. In 2006, CSPI notified
Kellogg that it would be sued for marketing sugary cereals and other
junk food directly to children. After negotiating for more than a year,
CSPI and Kellogg reached a historic settlement agreement
that set nutrition standards for the foods the company may advertise on
media with young audiences. Since then, Kellogg only advertises to
young audiences if a serving of the food meets certain nutrition
criteria. Subsequently, numerous other companies announced voluntary
nutrition standards for their advertising.
In previous fast-food litigation, CSPI sued KFC
for using partially hydrogenated oil, which made KFC's chicken high in
trans fat. CSPI dropped that lawsuit when the company agreed to phase out partially hydrogenated oils. KFC chicken is now trans-fat free.
McDonald's use of toys to market to children is also
beginning to come under scrutiny by local officials. The San Francisco
Board of Supervisors recently passed an ordinance
setting nutrition standards for children's meals sold with toys, and
CSPI is urging other jurisdictions to consider similar legislation.
See what experts are saying about Parham v. McDonald's here.
Since 1971, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been a strong advocate for nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science.
The State Department said the women were related to the assassinated Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, but Iranian media said they had no connection to him.
With a majority of Americans including President Donald Trump's own base demanding a swift end to the war in Iran—and Iran's military capabilities proving difficult to overpower—observers suggested on Saturday that the White House was looking elsewhere to score "victories," as Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that federal agents had arrested relatives of the late Major General Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian military commander who the US assassinated in 2020 during President Donald Trump's first term.
Rubio accused Soleimani's niece, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, of promoting "regime propaganda" and voicing support for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and said she had been living a "lavish lifestyle" in the US. Afshar's husband has been barred from entering the US and the lawful permanent resident status she and her daughter had has been terminated, said the State Department.
"Are we losing so badly we need to arrest the distant relatives of long-since-dead Iranian commanders?" asked Ryan Grim of Drop Site News.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council noted that the administration had used the same legal authority to arrest Soleimani's reported family members as it did to detain former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University scholar Rümeysa Öztürk for speaking out against US support for Israel—a tactic which is being challenged in court as unconstitutional.
Far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, who has wielded influence in the White House during the second Trump administration, claimed credit for the arrest of the two women, saying that in communications with the State Department, she had "exposed the fact that Qasem Soleimani’s Niece Hamideh Soleimani Afshar has been living in the United States (Los Angeles, California) where she posts pro-Iranian regime and pro-IRGC content on her social media while she lives a life of luxury."
"She has been arrested and will be deported back to Iran!" she added. "Over the last few months, I have quietly been documenting all of Hamideh Soleimani Afshar’s social media activity. I uploaded it all to a secure file and shared it with [the Department of Homeland Security] and Department of State, and now she has been arrested and she will be deported from our country."
In Iran on Saturday, media outlets were reporting that the two women arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement were not related to Soleimani—who had no nieces, according to journalist Kourosh Ziabari.
Soleimani's daughter told the news outlet Jamaran that "none" of her extended family has ever lived in the US.
Regardless of the women's relation to Soleimani or lack thereof, journalist Ryan Grim said the arbitrary arrest "actively puts innocent Americans around the world at risk."
Rubio's explanation for the detention and his move to revoke the women's green cards is the latest evidence that "the US is now deporting people for thought crimes," said historian Zachary Foster.
Journalist Sana Saeed said the case shows that constitutional protections for due process and free speech, which are supposed to apply to green card holders, "no longer mean anything."
"People cannot lose their green card status simply because of familial relationships, so the justification shifts here to their alleged support for the Iranian government," said Saeed. "But supporting a foreign government is not a criminal offense. And if you begin to treat it as one—as the US government effectively is in this case—then expect a lot more of this."
"It will not stop here, and it will not remain limited to Iranians," she said. "The logic does not contain itself, it expands."
The president demanded once again that Iran open the Strait of Hormuz and said that "all Hell will reign down" on the country if officials don't "make a deal."
As the US military's frantic search continued Saturday for an airman who was aboard an F-15E fighter jet when it was downed by Iranian forces a day earlier, and analysts and Iranian media alike suggested the Trump administration has lost control of its war against Iran, President Donald Trump issued his latest threat against the country—once again appearing to threaten tens of millions of Iranians with war crimes.
Renewing his demand that Iran "MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT," the president said he was giving the Iranian government "48 hours before all Hell will reign down on them," appearing to confuse the word "reign" with "rain."
"Time is running out," said Trump in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social.
In his post, Trump did not directly address the ongoing search for the airman, who was one of two who ejected from the fighter jet when Iran reportedly used new air defense systems to shoot down the plane. One crew member was found and rescued on Friday.
Iranian officials were also looking for the missing airman on Saturday, raising concerns that the service member could be taken as a hostage and used as leverage.
The president has said little about the ongoing search, but spoke briefly to The Independent in a phone call Saturday about the possibility that Iran could find the service member first.
"We hope that’s not going to happen,” he said.
Trump's comments on social media, meanwhile, appeared to signal "a countdown to massive war crimes," said New York University law professor Ryan Goodman.
The president has also previously warned Iran with an ultimatum, only to delay the threatened action. He said on March 22 that the US would "hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!" if officials did not reopen the strait—prompting critics to condemn him as a "maniacal tyrant."
The March 22 threat was likely a reference to Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, the vicinity of which was struck by a projectile on Saturday, prompting condemnation from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Human rights experts have repeated warnings in recent weeks that striking power plants would constitute war crimes.
At least five people were killed and 170 were injured in airstrikes on a petrochemical hub in Iran's Khuzestan province on Saturday morning, in addition to the Bushehr attack.
After his initial threat, Trump later said direct strikes on energy infrastructure would not be launched until April 6, and demanded that Iran open the key waterway before then.
Despite Trump's increasingly belligerent threats of "hell" and destruction of civilian infrastructure, a number of media critics noted on Saturday that mainstream Western news outlets including The New York Times, The Economist, and Bloomberg described Iran's use of air defense systems to shoot down US war planes involved in the invasion as an "escalation from Iran's leadership."
"Does Iran have a right to defend itself? Does Palestine? Does Lebanon?" asked commentator Hasan Piker, noting that the US and Israel have claimed they launched the invasion of Iran to "defend" themselves against an imminent attack, contrary to US intelligence analysis. "Or is it just Israel and America who get to claim self-defense as they engage in wars of conquest?"
The International Atomic Energy Agency warned of "the paramount importance of adhering to the seven pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security during a conflict."
The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday demanded "maximum military restraint" from the US and Israel as it confirmed reports that strikes had targeted a location close to Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, killing at least one person.
In a statement released via social media, the IAEA relayed a message from Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, who expressed "deep concern about the reported incident."
Grossi warned that nuclear power plants or nearby areas "must never be attacked, noting that auxiliary site buildings may contain vital safety equipment" and stressed "the paramount importance of adhering to the seven pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security during a conflict."
The IAEA said the attack near the Bushehr plant, Iran's only operational nuclear power facility, was the fourth such attack since Israel and the US began its invasion of Iran on February 28. The plant lies in a city inhabited by about 250,000 people.
A security staff member was killed by a projectile fragment and a building on the Bushehr site was impacted by shockwaves and fragments. Grossi said that no increase in radiation levels was reported.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also condemned the Bushehr strike and issued a reminder of the "Western outrage about hostilities near Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine" when Russia attacked the site.
"Israel-US have bombed our Bushehr plant four times now. Radioactive fallout will end life in [Gulf Cooperation Council] capitals, not Tehran. Attacks on our petrochemicals also convey real objectives," said Araghchi.
Al Jazeera reported that at least two petrochemical facilities had been hit by the US and Israel in southern Iran’s Khuzestan province, an energy hub in the country. At least five people were injured in those attacks,
Iranian news agency Mehr reported that the state-run Bandar Imam petrochemical complex, which produces liquefied petroleum gas and chemicals as well as other products, sustained damage.
President Donald Trump said late last month that he would delay any attacks on Iran's energy infrastructure until April 6 and said the delay was "subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions.”
He has threatened to destroy Iran's power plants and other civilian infrastructure if Iranian leaders don't end the blockade on the oil export waterway the Strait of Hormuz, which they began in retaliation for the US-Israeli strikes that started more than a month ago and which has fueled skyrocketing global energy prices.
The threat amounted to Trump warning that he could soon commit a war crime, said international law experts.