Well, the biggest story in the “kid and food” world yesterday was an announcement by McDonald’s USA of its plan to improve the Happy Meal.
Rolling out in September, Happy Meals around the country will start to contain a smaller serving of fries (1.1 ounces down from 2.4 ounces) and will now automatically contain a bag of apple slices (without a caramel dipping sauce.) Two bags of apples and no fries will be available upon request. In addition, the meals will also offer a new fat-free chocolate milk along with 1% plain milk. The price of the meals is not changing and they will still contain a free toy.
Beyond those basic facts, there has been some confusion in the media about the announcement. One question is whether milk or soda will be the default beverage served.
The New York Times‘s Prescriptions blog initially reported that the “company will offer a choice of milk with 1 percent fat or fat-free chocolate milk rather than soda, although parents can still ask for soda,” while CNN said that “all beverages, including milk, fruit juice, water and soda, continue to be options for the Happy Meal,” and ABC News reported that parents “must request” soda. But Nancy Huehnergarth, Executive Director of the New York State Healthy Eating and Physical Activity Alliance, told me last night that a Reuters reporter directly asked this question of the company and was told that soda will remain the default. Reuters has not yet published this fact, but I noticed this morning that the Times Prescriptions post now reads (without indicating that the text has been changed – not cool, NYT!) that “the default will be a cup for soda or water.” (And, by the way, when it comes to those apple slices, at least one media report indicated that instead of a bag of apples, kids might eventually get a bag of carrot sticks, pineapple spears or raisins.)
Bottom line, according to the company these changes will result in “an estimated 20 percent reduction in calories of the most popular Happy Meals, also reducing fat in the meal.” The company also makes a commitment to:
raise nutrition awareness among children and parents through national marketing initiatives. The company will promote nutrition messages in 100 percent of its national kids’ communications, including merchandising, advertising, digital and the Happy Meal packaging. McDonald’s will also provide funding for grass roots community nutrition awareness programs.
Kids’ meals aren’t the only foods getting a makeover. McDonald’s promises to reduce added sugars, saturated fat and calories in all of its menu items, but don’t look for those changes any time soon; the company gives itself until 2020 to rejigger its recipes. (Really? Nine years?) In the interim, it also promises to reduce sodium “an average of 15 percent overall across its national menu of food choices” by 2015 and it says it will make nutrition information more accessible.
There are a few other items in the McDonald’s press release worth noting. McDonald’s uses the occasion to tout its participation in the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (but you already know how I feel about that group – see “Fox Guards Henhouse: Industry’s ‘Self-Regulation’ of Children’s Food Advertising“); it promises to set up a “Kids’ Food and Nutrition Advisory Board; ” it says the company will submit to third party verification of its efforts, the results of which will be reported publicly; and, my personal favorite, executives from the company will go on a “listening tour” next month to learn more from parents and nutrition experts on the role McDonald’s can play in improving child nutrition. (Please, oh, please can I get on that tour route? ‘Cause I’ve got an earful to share.)
So what’s the upshot here? Corporate white-washing or meaningful change?
In a time of alarming childhood obesity, fast food generally — and children’s meals specifically — face mounting pressure from local governments and consumer groups. San Francisco and Santa Clara County have succeeded in banning toys in fast food meals which don’t meet certain nutritional requirements (which, as I understand it, the improved Happy Meals still do not) and a similar measure has been introduced in the New York City Council. (Meanwhile, Jack in the Box voluntarily dropped its toys last month.) Local governments have sought to pass public health measures directed at restaurants, such as bans on trans fats, or laws prohibiting the construction of new fast food restaurants in poverty-stricken areas. (But the restaurant industry has had success fighting against those measures in state legislatures.) And last month, as reported here on TLT, the National Restaurant Association announced a wide-ranging initiative to improve children’s menus at 15,000 participating chain restaurants, including Au Bon Pain, Burger King, Chili’s Grill & Bar, Denny’s and many more. (The conspicuous absence of McDonald’s from the list was noted at the time – we now know the company already had its new Happy Meal plan in the works.)
So, clearly, McDonald’s saw the handwriting on the wall and knew that the tide of public opinion was turning against a uniformly unhealthy Happy Meal. To have continued to sell it without improvements would have been remarkably tone deaf for a company that prides itself on reading, and meeting, consumer desire.
But in the end, how should we feel about it?
I can already guess that many commentators (and some of my fellow bloggers) will blast McDonald’s for its rank hypocrisy here. A bag of apples thrown into a box containing fries, nuggets and a soda doesn’t magically transform junk food into healthful food. And there is, without question, a lot of bogus, cynically PR-seeking hooey in the McDonald’s announcement, like the “Kids’ Food and Nutrition Advisory Board” (yeah, I’m sure that group will have a lot of influence on its multi-billion dollar master), and the aforementioned “listening tour.” I’m also marveling at the truly Orwellian scenario of putting “nutrition messages” on, of all things, Happy Meal packaging. (Gee, that won’t confuse kids.) And, of course, McDonald’s is steadfastly refusing to ditch the Happy Meal toy, a source of much concern among some children’s health advocates.
So sure, a lot of this feels like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. As Kelle Louaillier, executive director of Corporate Accountability International, said in a CNN story yesterday:
. . . we should be careful in heaping praise on corporations for simply reducing the scope of the problem they continue to create. . . . Ultimately corporate responsibility is not about securing public relations for cleaning up your own mess, but for not creating the problem in the first place. In this case, that means stopping the marketing of junk food to kids.
Agreed.
And there’s another issue to consider. As Kelly Brownell, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University, has already pointed out, this all could backfire terribly. Emboldened by news of a “healthy Happy Meal,” less food-savvy parents might feel more inclined than ever to let their kids eat at McDonald’s. (And perhaps that’s exactly what the chain is counting on.)
But with all that said . . . .
As I reported just yesterday (in a timely coincidence), a new Journal of the American Dietetic Association study shows that more and more of children’s daily calories are eaten in the form of fast food. We may rail against that fact, we may lament the demise of home cooking, we may have grand plans for changing the status quo. But until that day comes, it’s a sad truth that McDonald’s is a regular staple in the diet of many American children. (To put it in perspective, McDonald’s estimates that the aforementioned changes will eliminate 49 billion calories in American kids’ diets annually. If I did my math correctly, that comes to 14,000 pounds of lost body fat each year.)
So would I rather a child be given a smaller bag of fries versus a bigger one? Do I want fruit included in a kids’ meal or not? It would be counter-productive, I think, to take issue with those positive changes just because we (quite rightly) question the purity of the motives behind them. Moreover, let’s not overlook the fact that consumer and legislative pressure pushed a behemoth like McDonald’s in the right direction. Not far enough, of course, but that in itself is noteworthy. The key, then, is to keep right on pushing.
OK, I know you’ve got your own views to share about all this. Let me hear what you have to say.
[Ed. Note: I’m be curious to hear the views of respected, longstanding critics of the fast food industry like Marion Nestle (Food Politics), Michele Simon (Appetite for Profit) and others. As more posts are published about this topic in the coming days, I’ll share those links here.]
[Update: Here’s what Marion Nestle and Fooducate have to say. More to come.]
Get Your Lunch Delivered! Just “Like” TLT’s Facebook page (or “Follow” on Twitter), and you’ll never miss another post. You’ll also get bonus commentary, interesting kid-and-food links, discussion with other readers AND you’ll be showing TLT some love. ♥♥♥ So what are you waiting for?
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 Bettina Elias Siegel
Brad says
I tended to find the press release and announcements full of a lot of hype. I’m glad they are giving smaller fries, but if behavioral economics (see the book Nudge) taught us nothing, defaults REALLY matter. So if they were to make 2 servings of apples+low fat milk the default, I would be a lot happier and a lot less cynical. People could still get soda and fries, but they would need to take affirmative action.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Yes, the fact that soda is a default says a lot. Still, I would have been shocked if they totally removed fries from the meal. In the end, this is very much a business and I can only imagine how Happy Meal sales would tank if totally devoid of fries.
Michele Hays says
Sorry, I can’t get behind this particular change, because I don’t think the problem with McDonalds is just the kind of food they serve (not that they’re serving excellent food, by any standards.)
If we want people’s eating behavior to change, we need to start with business practices whose purpose is to modify customer behavior: i.e. advertising and marketing. Nominal changes in kids’ meals are just another marketing effort to pacify generations of customers and assure them it’s OK to visit McDonald’s more often.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
I think that point, also mentioned by Kelly Brownell in the post, is a good one – is this just permission for MORE McD consumption? And you know from previous posts, I’m sure, how I feel about the marketing question. As usual I find myself in the mushy middle because I see the cynical BS for what it is, but I’m not going to say, hey, keep your lousy apple slices and give us back large fries. Those small changes may make a (small) difference for kids who eat this stuff all the time. Am I falling right into their devious corporate hands? 🙂
Dana Woldow says
A quick scan of the headlines on this move showed a disturbing use of the word “healthy”, as in “Happy Meals Get Healthier”, “McDonald’s Healthy Happy Meal Change”, and “McDonald’s Bows to Pressure with More Healthful Happy Meal.”
This reminds me of those baked chips advertised as being “better for you”, which are only “better for you” in the sense that it is “better for you” to be hit in the head with a brick only twice instead of 3 times.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Yes, and I’m sure that’s exactly the sort of press they’re counting on.
Bri says
Here’s what I think:
Already, I’ve seen the following on a few comment threads for articles about this: “Well, THIS parent just got more likely to take their kid to McD’s!”
GAAACK. That’s exactly the result McD’s wanted. Is it BETTER to have apple slices and smaller fries? Sure. But the statistic I read in some report — sorry that I can’t lay my hands on it now — is that about 11 or 12 percent of parents purchasing Happy Meals were asking for the apples INSTEAD of the fries, before this change. Now those 12 percent will be getting the fries they weren’t ordering before. Is that “better?” Nope.
Also, isn’t adding apple slices to a Happy meal sort of like the proverbial lipstick on swine? It’s a lousy, processed, questionably sourced piece of fatty ground beef between two slabs of white bread; or even worse, mechanically separated “all white meat!” chicken with 56 or so added ingredients, none of which are good for you, chucked in a deep fryer. That’s the staple of this type of meal. And that’s what we’re supposed to forget, as McD’s tries to focus our attention on the apples and the (optional!) low-fat milk. It’s the ultimate marketing sleight-of-hand, and sadly, people are falling for it.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Bri: That 11% stat is correct and I don’t disagree with any of what you say here. Absolutely lipstick on a pig (or a nugget?).
But what’s the solution for the millions of kids who eat McD’s regularly? Parent education, trying to bring back cooking, rejiggering the farm funding as Bittman suggested, maybe even food taxes, etc etc. I feel like it all has to work together as part of an admittedly huge cultural shift. But if, in the meantime, kids are getting fewer fries with each meal, I can’t say that’s a bad thing in and of itself.
Barry says
Here Here ! Small changes, small steps ALL adds up.
Bri says
Absolutely correct, Bettina! Baby steps do make a difference. I just wish we could get to a place where those millions of kids WEREN’T eating there regularly, rather than making it seem encouraging for them to do so more often. Parent education is crucial, absolutely — because it’s the parents who are allowing themselves to be fooled by apple slices — but it’s still sad that we believe something like this is real news, despite the fact that the meals themselves are not really changing. Are we so far gone in this country that we want applause for giving children 1/2 a serving of FRUIT?
Barry says
Hello,
I can imagine that you do not go to McD or any fast-food place. Good for you! Adults are the ones who MAKE the choice to go. So rather than blame the fast-food locations, blame parents ! McD as well as others are a business and consumer choice drives business. Have you checked out Wendy’s lately? EVERY meal comes with a choice of sides; salad, fruit cup, baked potato, others along with FF’s. YOU decide.
Yes McD will get more biz from all of the free press talking about the change. What’s next, maybe make THEM offer FREE water also. Oh wait, they already do.
Good Day~
Bri says
Hi Barry! You’re right. I don’t go to many fast-food places, though I do occasionally eat at “fast-food-ish” restaurants with my kids. And you’re right. Parents are absolutely a humongous part of the equation in terms of responsibility; they ultimately decide where and what their children will eat.
Not sure where the Wendy’s analogy comes from, but I agree with you that in terms of fast food joints, I prefer their approach to others. We’re not talking about choice in fast food menus, though. We’re talking about McDonald’s setting a new DEFAULT to their Happy meals. I don’t care that they’re doing it; I don’t care if people still eat there, really. And I’ve said numerous times on my own blog and in comments here that ultimately, fast food restaurants can continue to exist and profit the way that they are because they are able to sell what they’ve got. Good for them. When my in-laws ordered a pancake topped with ice cream and candy for my kid, I didn’t say the restaurant should cease and desist offering it — I questioned the judgment of the people who ordered it, and the judgment of a society at large that would think such a thing on a breakfast menu is okay.
The point I’m making, which you may have missed, is that as a nation we allow ourselves to be led around by red herrings like this one, missing the reality utterly — which is that, sure, apple slices are BETTER than fries, but ultimately we’re still buying crap food for our children and allowing ourselves to be sold crap food. Shame on us.
Renee says
A minor point, but since my daughter doesn’t like french fries, she’s gotten the apple slices at McDonalds. She wouldn’t eat them –they were dried out and sour.
Dana Woldow says
Perhaps those apple slices are being treated with citric, ascorbic or acetic acid to inhibit browning? Yummy!
Amanda @ Tales of an Amateur Mommy says
I am also concerned about the choice words of “healthy” in all these headlines. For those who have very little understanding of what that word even means in the first place, I think this is a way to get what McD’s and any other big business is always looking for in the end- MONEY. I am one parent who isn’t fooled. McD’s can keep their happy meals, as well as the rest of their junk food.
Christina @ Spoonfed says
Dana, you just made me laugh out loud. Yes, the “better for you” mantra is exactly like that.
I haven’t had time to blog about this (post-vacation, crazy work deadlines), but I just posted a quick Facebook note with some thoughts inspired by Andy Bellatti (who I keep referencing lately). His post is here: http://smallbites.andybellatti.com/?p=7347
Two points I made in Andy’s comments and in my FB note:
1. One thing that jumped out at me yesterday was mention of this “cup” for “soda or water.” That’s a perfect example of how McDonald’s is deceptive. If the default is a cup on a tray, 99% of those cups will be filled with soda. And McDonald’s knows that. Yet McDonald’s will claim that it’s offering a “choice” between healthful and unhealthful, and that it’s up to parents to decide. And that is just BS. McDonald’s wants people to (falsely) feel better about eating there (preferably more often) by preaching “choice” and “moderation.” It’s a marketing stunt, pure and simple.
2. “The “personal responsibility” argument always gets trotted out in times like this. But, as I wrote on the Spoonfed FB page yesterday, here’s why it’s faulty: Yes, absolutely, people can choose not to eat at McDonald’s (we choose not to). But McDonald’s shouldn’t claim there are healthy choices on the menu when there aren’t. That’s just false advertising. The other problem is that McDonald’s controls such a disproportionate share of the food market that it has a huge influence on the way food is grown and processed even outside of its own restaurants. And that calls for some serious accountability. We all need to be responsible consumers, for sure. But that doesn’t mean we should let corporations off the hook entirely. It’s not an either-or thing, you know? I’ve written a lot about this previously, including this post: http://spoonfedblog.net/2010/11/05/forget-happy-meal-toys-lets-ban-mceducation/
Bottom line: No way I can get on board with this.
Renee says
I so agree with this –personal responsibility is great, but shouldn’t corporate responsibility (you know, like NOT lying to the public) should be expected as well?
Maggie says
In a best case scenario, child enjoys apple slices from McDs. Child and parent have a grocery store in their area that sells fresh produce. Child and parent go to store. Child and parent are in produce department. Child sees apple…now this is where it gets harder to envision…does child recognize an actual apple as the same thing as the sliced and bagged McDs product? If they do…maybe…just maybe they tell parent they like them and they parent buys it?
Since I tend to view most child/food things through the lens of school food service, I’m sad to say that it probably wouldn’t turn out that way. Even if they recognized the apple, they’d probably be disappointed that it had a stem and a core and seeds and all that ugly stuff…just like chicken nuggets being so appealing to a child , and a real chicken drumstick (does that have bones??? ICK!) being, well, ick.
It’s a small change, but I don’t think we ended up being a nation of “non-cooking/restaurants as a constant source of food” people overnight. It’ll take time. Unless somehow every restaurant was closed down in some sort of “sink or swim” type of experiment?
Charles Kuffner says
For a rather different perspective on all of this, check out some of the reactions Roy Edroso compiled here:
http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2011/07/wont-someone-please-think-of-randian.html
Sometimes a McNugget is just a McNugget, but clearly not everyone believes that.
Michelle says
It’s silly to think McDonald’s food could be anything close to healthy. It’s just another gimmick to trick folks into thinking big chain fast food can be a healthy diet choice – it’s disgusting.
Karen Frenchy says
These “healthier” changes won’t really affect my family. We rarely eat McDo’s food and when we do, our 4 YO daughter’s Happy Meal has apples, nuggets & water…
All I want to say is “why not?”.
Starting in September 2011, McDo France will introduce in their menu French bread for their breakfast (McCafé)… Again, why not although McDo wouldn’t be my 1st choice for a “French” breakfast on the go…
Julie says
I would start to be impressed if McD’s made similar changes to the adult menus – with milk and fruit. #1- Kids pick up on what the adults are doing and model it. #2 – I would love to have apple slices and chocolate milk in my (occasional) extra value meal.
lindtfree says
Although I don’t have children myself, my mother used a tactic with me to counteract the effects of 1970s junk-food marketing that was often (but not always) effective: specifically, she guessed my real motive for wanting something and reminded me that I didn’t really like X (or liked Y better).
By the time “Happy Meals” came on the market, I was in late elementary school and too old to be tempted by them. Had I been a susceptible preschooler, I am certain my mother would have asked, “Do you really want to eat at McDonald’s, or do you just want one of those junky toys that comes with a Happy Meal?” Not only did my mother HATE junky toys, but she also knew that on my personal childhood Zagat scale, McDonald’s earned far fewer stars than the A&W.
When I was four or five, my mother’s “but you really wouldn’t like that” strategy was usually used to counteract pleas for breakfast cereals. This was an era when junky toys were often included in boxes of sugary cereal, and she would remind me that except for Captain Crunch (whom I thought was related to Captain Kangaroo), I didn’t like children’s cereal. Never mind the “mail in 12 box tops and we’ll send you a free Barbie” offer, kid. You hate cereal with marshmallows.
As for the recent (Un)happy Meal changes, of course they’re PR/greenwashing. I can’t imagine most children like apple slices. . .sliced apples turn brown quickly unless they’re treated with lemon juice or a preservative. McDonald’s would be better off including small bananas (which almost all children like) served with the peels intact.
No matter how pressed parents are for time or how tight their budgets, a peanut butter or cheese sandwich on wheat bread always trumps “fast food.”
Bettina Elias Siegel says
lindtfree – I think you and I came of age at the same time. I, too, conflated Cap’n Crunch with Captain Kangaroo back in the early 70s! 🙂
There’s no question that a PBJ or the like is better than McDonald’s. And there’s no question that these Happy Meal changes are fairly minimal in the scheme of things. I guess I just approach this with a realist’s (or maybe defeatist’s) attitude by noting that one in three kids eat fast food every single day. That’s a sobering statistic. So if this change improves meals for those 1/3 kids, I can’t say it’s a bad thing entirely, even if it is a cynical PR strategy. Of course, what we really want is either for McD to REALLY make a healthy meal (don’t hold your breath) or for parents to stop taking their kids there. But in the interim, if the serving of fries is cut in half . . . .