The Ethics of Fast Food

I read with great interest the story about Weight Watchers signing a deal to endorse certain McDonald’s products in New Zealand and Australia starting this month. Both companies are extremely enthusiastic about the idea, and there are hints that if the relationship proves successful they might expand it to other countries, including a McDonald’s near you, sometime in the near future. It’s certainly a unique move in the burger wars – up until now, most of the competition has centered around quality, price, and which movie tie-in products you find more appealing; health consciousness is a new one. And, not unexpectedly, the whole deal is turning into a major controversy down under…

You can access the original press story in the Sydney Morning Herald if you want to, but the basic idea is that Weight Watchers is allowing McDonald’s to use their logo on three value meals that are being marketed as healthier and better for dieters than the traditional burgers and fries. Many consumers seem to like the idea, but nutritionists and obesity experts are condemning the move, saying that it’s just a stealth way to suck people into McDonald’s and sell them the same old fat-laden products. All of which raises at least two interesting problems from a purely ethical standpoint…

On the one hand, Weight Watchers is not a government agency or a non-profit group; they were established to make money, and it can not be disputed that they have a fiduciary responsibility to their ownership to make as much of it as possible without violating any laws or ordinances. This licensing deal with McDonald’s (which is all this agreement actually is; the products are not changing, nor is Weight Watchers providing any input on what McDonald’s will sell or how they will fabricate anything) will make a lot of money for the people who own Weight Watchers for no capital outlay whatsoever; the only thing they are giving in return is the use of their name and reputation. From a purely accounting/finance standpoint, they’d actually be remiss if they didn’t take this deal…

On the other hand, the nutritionists are definitely correct when they argue that McDonald’s is only doing this to bring in people who wouldn’t normally do business with them – and hopefully, their families as well. The scenario of a parent going to McDonald’s and getting to feel good about eating a Weight Watchers-approved meal while the kids eat the regular burgers and fries is highly likely; so is the chance that some of the people trying to eat “healthy” foods will break down and purchase some of their favorites instead. Even more to the point, Weight Watchers has spent decades (and billions of dollars) cultivating the image of being about helping people to lose weight. Despite their actual business model (making lots of money on diet services), even people who should know better will tend to accept that if the company approves of a product, it will actually help you to lose weight. For Weight Watchers to pretend otherwise is absurd – and highly disingenuous…

So the question is this: does Weight Watchers have a responsibility to the members of the public who have bought into their public image (e.g. they’re dedicated to helping people lose weight), or is that responsibility overridden by their fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders? Does McDonald’s have a responsibility to its customers to actually help them live healthier lives, or does their responsibility to their own stockholders (to make as much money as possible selling inexpensive foods) override whatever they owe their customers? Do you, as a consumer, have the right to be able to trust in the artificially-generated corporate images of the companies with whom you do business, or do you have a duty to be responsible for your own health (in this case, dietary health) and make decisions about what your buy or eat based on the facts, not licensed symbols and logos? And if not, where do you draw the line between creative advertising stunts and outright fraud?

It’s worth thinking about…