Skip to main content

No Ronald McDonald = No More Kids with Diabetes in the U.S.?

A couple months ago, when I first heard about the news that some people (not sure if they are nutritionists) advocated for a retirement of Ronald McDonald, the clown and symbol of McDonald’s, I did not take it seriously because it seems like a joke to me. Today, MSNBC brought up this issue again. I finally notice I need some help to clarify some questions.

Am I too na├»ve? Or is it because I have not lived in this country long enough to understand the “real” American culture? Honestly, I have difficulty of figuring out the logic behind this movement. May I ask: if the government (not McDonald’s) fires or gets rid of Ronald McDonald, will there be no more American kids with diabetes? If that is the case, would it be easier to demand every restaurant that sells hamburgers and French fries to close the doors? How about just prohibiting all restaurants from selling unhealthy food? Even better, how about prohibiting all supermarkets from selling any ingredient that can be used for unhealthy food? No more ground beef, no more cooking oils, no more potatoes, and no more … no more …

Relevant discussions:
Healthy Food Trends
Salt Intake: Shall We Leave This Decision to Individuals or the Government?
A New Challenge for Chefs: Cooking without Salt


 
References:
Picture was downloaded from bNET.com.

Comments

  1. Hello,

    This is a nice blog and Helpful for me because i have a blog too and i want to simply ask if you want some exchange link to help my blog too. :)



    DirectGov Jobs



    thanks you very much.

    Darwin

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am glad that you find this blog helpful to you, Darwin. Guest contributors are welcome in my blog. As long as you write something that may interest the audience, I will be happy to post your discussion (post) for you --- when I put your bio underneath your post, you may briefly talk about your blog and provide a link to your blog.

    Linchi Kwok
    lkwok@syr.edu

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe the issue with Ronald McDonald is that he is an icon that promotes the sales of unhealthy foods marketed towards children. Advertising with such characters during children’s programing has been shown to influence what a child will eat. Obviously it works or big business would not be using such tactics. It’s not just about unhealthy eating it’s about marketing products that could be made healthier. You can have a conventional farmed, frozen beef burger patty on a nutritionless white bun (probably made with high fructose corn syrup) and rehydrated dried onions. OH, and lets not forget the ammonia added to the beef pattie to protect us from e coli. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?pagewanted=all

    OR you can eat someplace else, or at home, and have a fresh ground beef patty, conventionally farmed, organic, or grass fed on a whole wheat bun with real onions, lettuce and tomatoes. You can have a McSalad made with precut bagged iceberg lettuce or you can go somewhere else and have a salad made with fresh ingredients. Don’t even get me going on the chicken nuggets they market to kids. Are they a food? A food substance? Besides chicken, chicken parts, corn they throw in a little TBHQ, an antioxidant derived from petroleum http://www.rense.com/general76/chk.htm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T67DvoH2H3E

    It’s not about prohibiting the sale of unhealthy food. All foods fit. It’s about stopping the marketing of such food, with it’s FREE toy, to the segment of our population that are too young to know better.

    Just wanted to add this link that I found interesting, “McDonalds Happy Meal Lasts Forever”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy4imvN67H8&feature=relmfu

    Debra M.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Luxury vs. Millennials and Their Technology: The Ritz-Carlton (By Julia Shorr)

Embodying the finest luxury experience, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC has been established since 1983. In 1998, Marriott International purchased the brand offering it more opportunity for growth while being independently owned and operated. They are known for their enhanced service level as the motto states, “Ladies and Gentlemen serving Ladies and Gentlemen”. The luxury brand now carries 97 hotels and resorts internationally and is attempting to keep the aspects of luxury while keeping up with the trends of the technologically improving generations. The Varying Demographics of the Target Market The Ritz-Carlton’s typical target market includes: business executives, corporate, leisure travelers, typically middle-aged persons and elders, and families from the upper and upper-middle class section of society .   This infers a large range of types of travelers in which all are similar in that they are not opposed to spending extra for the luxurious ambiance. However, with

How to choose the best credit cards for travel (By David Mai)

  Traveling in a Post-Pandemic World If there was one thing the pandemic taught us, it was that everybody became hesitant and unwilling to travel. Shaver (2020) of The Washington Post shared an interesting tidbit in which Americans were actually staying home less during the pandemic, according to research that tracks users' smartphone data.  The quarantine fatigue affected nearly everyone who lived an active lifestyle or loved to be out and about in the world. It was simply not a safe time, and too many regulations were in place that deterred consumers from traveling for leisure. Consequently, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the travel and hospitality industry. Yet, there is no doubt that people will yearn to travel again when the pandemic is fully lifted. Around this same time, credit card companies have developed unique ways to retain business with consumers who look to maximize rewards and benefits for their journey. A Little Preparation Goes a Long Way      

Yammer: A Social Networking Site Exclusively for the Workplace

Effective internal communications among employees are related to some desirable organizational outcomes, such as robust morale, a clear vision, low turnover, and high employee engagement. The question is what platform can serve the purpose. This ABC News video introduces “ Yammer ,” an exclusive internal communication tool for companies. A user must use a valid company e-mail address to sign up for an account. Once an account is validated, the user will be led to the company page that is pretty much like a Facebook page. The difference is that only the users whose e-mail addresses share the same domain can see the wall and communicate with each other. I have no question about whether Yammer could be a useful internal communication tool for companies, but I just wonder: how many social networking sites do people need for communication? Why people have to “create” so many platforms or channels for “effective communications”? To many people, Facebook is only for “friends,” whe