Unhappy Meals

Would you like some cadmium with those fries? A slideshow of recalled fast-food toys.


McDonald’s was supposed to be bulletproof. With a global rep to maintain, it has taken considerable pains to ensure that the promotional items it peddles aren’t harmful to children. In fact, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, which took a drubbing after the 2007 Chinese toy fiasco, holds up McDonald’s as a shining example of corporate diligence. From the CPSC website’s “Catalog of Good Practices:”

People often do not focus on the extent to which restaurants have entered the toy business. Toys for young children, such as those given away in many fast food restaurants, can be tested for hazards like suffocation and choking. McDonald’s is a leader in this regard. Working with a contractor, the company created its own state-of-the-art technology consisting of a lifelike child mannequin and “virtual child” computer system to simulate the physiology of a child. With this advanced technology, McDonald’s is able to screen toys used in its promotions to detect and avoid safety hazards before the toys are given out.

Obviously, that’s not good enough. In 2010 McDonald’s recalled 12 million Shrek-themed drinking glasses containing cadmium. That’s the same human carcinogen found in a batch of Claire’s “best friends” bracelets recalled on May 10. (Claire’s also recalled lead-tainted bracelets in 2007—and again in 2008.)

Indeed, the continuing stream of CPSC product recalls makes you want to stay the hell away from toy stores. And given the degree to which these recalls still depend on voluntary reporting, you have to wonder what’s still getting past the CPSC. (MoJo contributor Josh Kurlantzick asked the same question of the Food and Drug Administration.) The Shrek items comprised the first such recall since 2002, which means either the fast-food corporations have gotten pretty good about pre-screening for lead and choking hazards and such—or that the regulators haven’t paid enough attention. This slideshow details the relatively few fast-food toys recalled since 2000. For whatever reason, none of them involved lead. 

“Working with a contractor, the company created its own state-of-the-art technology consisting of a lifelike child mannequin and ‘virtual child’ computer system to simulate the physiology of a child. With this advanced technology, McDonald’s is able to screen toys used in its promotions to detect and avoid safety hazards before the toys are given out.”
—Consumer Product Safety Commission’s “Catalog of Good Practices

Restaurant: McDonald’s
Toy: “Shrek Forever After 3D” drinking glasses
Recalled: 12 million on June 4, 2010
Why: Design contains cadmium, a known carcinogen that can also cause kidney and respiratory problems.
Problems: None reported.

 

Restaurant: Halo Burger
Toy: Flashlight
Recalled: 9,500 on Nov. 15, 2002
Why: Leaking batteries and choking hazards.
Problems: Two reports of young children receiving minor skin irritation on their mouths from leaking batteries.

Restaurant: Burger King
Toy: “Hourglass Space Sprout” and “Look for Me Bumblebee”
Recalled: 2.6 million on July 31, 2001
Why: Various choking hazards
Problems: Six incidents where children had plastic balls or beads in their mouth; no injuries reported.

Restaurant: Whataburger
Toy: “Whatagear Compass Toy”
Recalled: 330,000 on April 26, 2001
Why: Choking hazard from lens covers
Problems: Four reports of lens covers coming off, but no injuries.

Restaurant: McDonald’s
Toy: “Scooter Bug”
Recalled: 234,000 on March 5, 2001
Why: Antennae break off, posing choking hazard.
Problems: Two reports of children choking; one report of child gagging.

Restaurant: Chick-fil-A
Toy: “Planetary Discovery”
Recalled: 3.8 million on Feb. 8, 2001
Why: Suction cup comes off, presenting choking hazard.
Problems: Seven reports. One child began choking, but parent removed suction cup in time.

Restaurant: Fazoli’s
Toy: “Pasta Pals”
Recalled: 310,000 on Aug. 29, 2000
Why: Suffocation hazard; bottom of container fits over a child’s nose and mouth.
Problems: One report of child putting container over mouth; no injuries.

Restaurant: KFC
Toy: “Tangled Treeples”
Recalled: 425,000 on Aug. 10, 2000
Why: Suffocation hazard; container can fit over child’s nose and mouth.
Problems: 19-month-old girl reportedly had container stuck over face, causing distress. When mom removed it, red mark left behind.

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate