Skip to main content

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

Image
By
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 naïve? 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.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Linchi KwokMay 20, 2011 at 10:03 AM

    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
  2. joyof3boysSeptember 5, 2011 at 11:53 AM

    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

Is It OK for Hotel Staff to Wear Piercings and Tattoos?

By
Time has changed. I see more and more college students wearing piercings and tattoos nowadays, but is it OK for hotel staff to wear piercings and tattoos? The answer is “no, no, no.” According a report at USAToday.com, customers across the board do not want to see any hotel workers with pierced eyebrow, pierced tongue, tattooed arm, or nose ring. Some may argue that tattooed and pierced workers may seem more acceptable in edgy boutique hotels as compared to the big franchised hotels, but the survey results did not find any differences among a variety of lodging products. Many respondents believe people who wear visible tattoos and piercings are taking a high risk of their professional lives. If you stay in a hotel, do you mind being served by tattooed and/or pierced staff? What if you are the one who makes the hiring decision? References: USAToday.com: http://tinyurl.com/linchikwok08042010 Picture was downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/linchikwok08042010P
28 comments
Read more

Where Coffee Meets Culture: My Experience with Orientation, Socialization, and Culture at Dutch Bros (by Karina Martinez)

By
When people think of Dutch Bros, they usually picture colorful drinks, loud music, free stickers, and baristas so friendly they’ll jump in the car with you.  As someone who has had the opportunity to work for Dutch Bros, I can say that the energy customers feel isn’t an act; it is the result of intentional and effective HR practices that are focused on orientation, socialization, and culture. From your very first day, you experience how these practices shape the entire Dutch experience.  Orientation, Socialization, Culture   In HR management, orientation is the introduction of the role and company to new hires. This is intended to help them feel welcomed and informed. Socialization goes beyond the initial training process; it’s how new hires grasp the organization’s values, behaviors, and traditions over time. Together, these fun...
5 comments
Read more

Average/Below-Average Looking People Can Earn as Much as the Attractive Ones

By
Research has shown that attractive people can not only charm interviewers (and thus get hired easier), they are also more likely to earn more as compared to those with average or below-average looks. Accordingly to a Wall Street Journal report , attractive people can earn 3% - 4% more than a person with below-average look. If such difference adds up over a person’s lifetime, an attractive person can earn up to $230,000 more than an ugly worker; even an average-looking person can make $140,000 more. Another relevant Wall Street Journal report also suggests that workers who exercise regularly can earn 9% more than those who do not. If that is the fact (I believe it is), is it legal? Can employers do that? Linchi Kwok and Otto @SyracuseU Career Fair To my knowledge, no law or regulation under EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) considers a person’s look as a protective class. It is true that people in general have an idea of what kind of person they feel attract...
33 comments
Read more