Ellen Goodman's column in today's paper supports the lawsuit against McDonald's. I don't know how to copy the column into this posting, but perhaps someone else can.

I usually agree with Goodman's columns, I think she is quite insightful, but I can't go along with her argument this time. Yes, McDonald's does directly market unhealthy foods to kids, but lots of other companies also directly market unhealthy/objectionable things to kids. What about all the ads for sugared breakfast cereals on commercial TV? What about the ads for Game Boys and other video games that will just rot their minds? We have a capitalistic economy and there is lots of marketing excess going on. Much of that marketing is directed at kids and teenagers. Why should McDonald's be singled out?

I have raised two kids to adolescence and neither eats at McDonald's (or any other fast food restaurant) in part because I never took them there as toddlers or children. When they occasionally went with friends, they came home talking about how strange it was and how bad the food was. They never watched commercial TV either, so they never saw ads for sugared breakfast cereals. Parents need to share some responsibility in protecting their kids from unhealthy marketing influences. Sueing McDonalds is absurd. (Unfortunately, I did expose them to much too much pizza and pasta as toddlers/children and they are both addicted to that. However, I can only blame myself (and the USDA food pyramid), not some big corporation.)

Anyway, I managed to get plenty fat without ever eating at McDonalds or any other fast food restaurant! Despite Goodman's argument, I still think the lawsuit is absurd.