McDonalds CEO gets nutrition lecture from 9-year-old Canadian girl

[marmar]

By: Bruce Horovitz USA Today, Published on Fri May 24 2013
1

McDonald’s needs kids more than today’s kids need McDonald’s.

Perhaps no one knows that better than CEO Don Thompson, who was seriously put on the hot seat by a 9-year-old girl at Thursday’s annual shareholder’s meeting in Oak Brook, Ill.

For a few moments, Hannah Robertson — whose mother, Kia, is a kid’s nutritional activist and creator of an interactive children’s game on nutrition called Today I Ate a Rainbow — stood and lectured the CEO of one of the world’s biggest brands.

“There are things in life that aren’t fair — like when your pet dies,” said Hannah, whose voice never wavered. “I don’t think it’s fair when big companies try to trick kids into eating food. It isn’t fair that so many kids my age are getting sick,” she said — blaming McDonald’s for unfairly targeting kids with advertisements for food that isn’t good for them. ..........................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/05/24/dont_you_want_kids_to_be_healthy_mcdonalds_ceo_gets_nutrition_lecture_from_9yearold_girl.html

[iemitsu]

1. Good for this young activist and her mother,

who clearly is involved in "home schooling" her daughter (when it comes to healthy nutrition).
An excellent voice of protest, since she is both representative of McDonald's business client/target and an "innocent child" (from the mouths of babes). Her voice will be heard more clearly and effectively than most others could ever hope for.
But, why does the nutritionist, mother, own McDonald's stock? It is kind of like being a peace activist, who owns stock in Halliburton.

[Big Blue Marble]

2. I assume that she owns stock just to be eligible to attend the stockholder's meetings.

Activists often use this tactic to speak truth to power.

[iemitsu]

3. Yes, I assume you are right about that.

It is not a bad strategy, in fact it may be a necessary tactic, for those who want to voice minority opinions, but still, it somehow, sits uncomfortably in my gut.
I assume too, that this woman is aware of the inherent conflict in giving money to a corporation, whose behavior you believe to be detrimental to the health of the community, just to gain access to the stock-holder's meeting. I'm sure she has weighed those interests and made a good choice. I really did not mean to question her motives or methodology.
But, once, during the build-up to invading Iraq, a colleague of mine, who had expressed anti-war sentiment, told me that she had transferred much of her retirement investment funds to Halliburton. I was shocked. Perhaps it was a good financial decision for one to make in our dog eat dog society but it smacked of mercenary opportunism to me. I couldn't look at that woman the same, afterward.

[Big Blue Marble]

4. I made the determination long ago that there are no "pure investments."

If one is going to save money to provide for future resources.
the ethical question becomes where do you keep it? Even credit unions
are not perfect. It it is an ethical conundrum we each have to sort out
for ourselves.

I have concluded it may be more important how we personally choose to
spend our monies. At least to some extent, we have more choice in our
outflows than our inflows and investments.

[iemitsu]

6. We each make these decisions alright, whether or not we

have even given any thought to the ethics behind investments and spending. Every transaction we are involved in has some impact.

[Big Blue Marble]

7. You are so right! N/T

[Rex]

5. There is a reason they call it 'junk food'.

nt.