Ronald McDonald debuted in 1963 with TV personality Willard Scott donning the clown costume for the first time in an ad spot for McDonald's (MCD). But if some health advocates have their way, the fiery-haired clown's days are numbered.

The Corporate Accountability International is calling McDonald's mascot a "deep-fried Joe Camel for the 21st Century" and is sponsoring "Retire Ronald" events at several locations around the country. The group claims that Ronald McDonald is a spokesperson for childhood obesity, and they want him cut from the payroll pronto.

With a market cap of about $4 billion, WebMD Health Corp. (WBMD) shows that there is a big market for online health content. Keep in mind that nearly 70% of all adults in the US used the Net to get health care information (for 2009).

So, to capitalize on the financial opportunities, Everyday Health also wants to become a public company (the filing came this week).

Most investors spend a lot of time analyzing P/E ratios, PEG ratios, ROIC, ROE, gross margins, insider trading, and Beta.

But might the path to profits come instead from looking for companies that have wellness programs for their workers? The 2009/2010 North American Staying@Work Report: The Health and Productivity Advantage from Watson Wyatt Worldwide says yes.

A late-May conclusion arguing that institutional investors had started to re-commit to Cigna Corp., due to its constructive, staircase chart, virtually no breaches of the 50-day moving average, and adequate earnings outlook, has so far proved to be on-the-mark.

Hence, I'm reiterating my Buy rating for Cigna Corp. (NYSE: CI), first recommended on May 28, 2009 at a price of $21.89. If you bought CI then, you're up about 45%.

The markets have been up so strongly that it's shockingly wonderful not to be able to find too much market bad news but a few things merit mention today. A new study out of the UK found that even being mildly overweight can have a major impact on life expectancy -- as in, three years less. Will people stop eating donuts and burgers? Nah.

It's right there in the stock symbol: for Yum! Brands (NYSE: YUM), parent of Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, is all about good taste. None of the food conglomerates' brands have ever been widely recognized for their healthfulness; in fact, it's safe to say that consumers passionate about healthy eating consider the entire suite of fast-service restaurants dens of iniquity.

Yum is trying to change all that. No, not by making any of the restaurants' foods more healthy, but by targeting consumers who are looking to lose weight with its new Keep It Balanced web site. The site shows laughing, gorgeous, healthy consumers holding chalupas and sodas, while exhorting weight-conscious readers to "Keep a record of what you eat and drink" and "Be Patient!" while ordering sauce on the side at Taco Bell and (seriously?) removing the skin and breading from your KFC fried chicken. Meanwhile shadowy figures dance around the corners of the site's frames in moves reminiscent of Tai Chi; a discipline that I would be willing to bet 90% of the company's consumers don't practice and, likely, consider ridiculous.

The message: our food is so totally unhealthy, but you can make it healthy by picking off all the tasty bits. Then you'll be free to head to martial arts training with a clear conscience. Brilliant. Or, perhaps, absolutely unbrilliant and obviously meant only to pay lip service to criticism that the company's foods are contributing to our nation's decidedly unhealthy relationship with food, a half-hearted effort to associate its brands with the "diet season" of January. In my estimation, the site is a waste of marketing dollars and, as long as you're not an investor, laughable.

This post is part of a series where personal finance expert Dan Solin looks at money secrets that help the rich stay rich. See more.

It always seemed to me that most people who said that money can't buy happiness didn't have much money.

It would be more accurate to say that if your unhappiness has nothing to do with money, wealth won't make you happy.

The harsh reality is that most of us need a certain amount of money to pay the bills and hopefully provide for retirement with dignity.

Investors who follow the basic lessons that rich people know will be taking a positive step in the direction of responsible, intelligent investing that will help them maximize their returns.

Really rich people understand that money can't buy health. It also can't buy meaningful relationships with family or friends.

For the purposes of this examination, let's set aside the fact that you can find reliable clinical research that shows that tobacco smokers cost the insurance industry less over their lifetimes than svelte nonsmokers do. This is simply due to the fact that we tend to die sooner. But that's a matter of insurance industry/government/pharmaceutical hijinx, to possibly discuss another time.

That aside, the item I'm bringing forward today is how the issue of lying smokers should be pursued by Whirlpool Corp.(NYSE: WHR). I'll not take issue against Whirlpool's insurance plan demanding a different level of premium payment from smokers. I'll not take issue against Whirlpool asking smokers to document their participation in the addiction. I'll not take issue against Whirlpool taking action against smokers who lied when claiming that they don't smoke. What I do argue against is the ludicrous notion that Whirlpool employees have turned on one another. It appears that's what the company expects us to believe.

Whirlpool management wants you to believe that they had 39 instances of one employee reporting another for serving their nicotine addiction in violation of what should be a confidential declaration of status. Whirlpool expects you to believe that these company "rats" know which smokers lied on their paper work and which didn't. Whirlpool expects you to believe that all policy violators are of hourly status and that violations by management staff either don't exist or aren't yet worth pursuing. Whirlpool expects us to believe that the company itself wasn't at the root of this all.

Talk about your tempest in a teapot, here's a good one for you. It seems that a congressional committee has taken up arms against Dr. Robert Jarvik, inventor of the artificial heart, because he didn't row his own boat in his recent appearance in a Lipitor television advertisement. The concern is over whether the doctor should be represented as rowing a boat when the person in the boat pictures isn't actually him. Next, Congress will be exposing the fact that M & M's don't really talk to Santa Claus. Dang it, I hate when that happens.

Further noise is being made because the good doctor is apparently not licensed to practice medicine. That makes some people question his worthiness to crow for Lipitor. That's funny, I don't remember him claiming that he'd prescribed the stuff to anyone himself. Does it really matter in the final analysis if the man isn't licensed to work in a hospital? Not to me. He's a doctor who knows hearts and he wants people to know how they might better care for their own. He apparently uses the product, it works for him, and he's willing to talk about it. That's kind of the basics of simple endorsement, isn't it?

I'll tell you what I think this is all about. I think some of those good old boys in the halls of Congress probably sold short on Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) , and they're probably mad because Dr. Jarvik's endorsement isn't allowing Lipitor to be crushed by Zocor, its cheaper generic competition. You can almost see their smug bipartisan grins as you read the whole story from Stephanie Saul in The New York Times. I think they want to muddy the waters just long enough for their short bets to come in, regardless of the cost to Dr. Jarvik's reputation. Those Washington stuffed shirts sure got their committees all whipped up in a big hurry on this one, didn't they. That's kind of telling, isn't it.

I suppose next they'll be telling us that geckos don't really talk about car insurance. Could that even be possible?

Score a victory for corporate responsibility and good taste.

After drawing fire from nearly everyone when a Seminole County, Florida, mother complained that her 9 year-old daughter's report card arrived wrapped in an advertisement for McDonald's (NYSE: MCD), the company has decided it will discontinue that practice.

At the time of the original scandal, I wrote that I thought the ad campaign sent the wrong message: "The ad offered kids a free Happy Meal for their good work. Shouldn't kids be taught to work for knowledge and pride, not crappy food and imported toys?"

Apparently McDonald's ultimately agreed, saying it offered to reprint the report card envelopes without the ad at no cost to the school, "because we believe the focus should be on the importance of a good education."

It's a shame that young children are exposed to cynical cradle-to-grave marketing strategies on television, but parents should be able to send their kids to school without having to worry that second-grade teachers will be hocking Happy Meals.

CVS Caremark (NYSE: CVS) is no longer looking for new acquisitions, but rather will focus on assimilating recent acquisitions, Chairman and Chief Executive Thomas Ryan said on Wednesday. While speaking to the Reuters Health Summit in New York (check out the blog for the conference here), Ryan said, "It's most important that we stay focused on the integration, the execution and getting our balance sheet in order, and then we will have the opportunity to look at opportunistic acquisitions."

CVS acquired giant pharmacy benefits manager Caremark in March and continues to integrate recent drugstore chain purchases.

It sounds like the company has its hands full given the amount of M&A work CVS has done over the past couple of years combined with the organic growth the firm is seeing. While fierce competitor, Walgreen (NYSE: WAG), is considering applying the brakes in terms of opening up new doors, CVS is in full-throttle mode right now.

Target (NYSE: TGT) announced something interesting this week. The nation's second-largest discount retailer said it will seek U.S. government approval to add a consumer warning to labels of meat treated with carbon monoxide. In a way, it is saying that all that fresh-looking red meat sold in its SuperTarget stores and other locations with grocery sections already carries meat with added chemicals.

Carbon monoxide, along with disgusting chemicals like sodium nitrite, is used to keep dead meat looking fresh and bright red, long after it has naturally lost its color in the process of being transported and stocked at your local grocer. However, the lack of information given to customers about these chemicals and additives to artificially keep some products presentable (while being a threat to health) bothered Target, apparently.

Target sells meat in 210 of its 1,537 stores, and wants to add verbiage to all red meat labels that reads: "Consumer Notice: Carbon monoxide has been used to preserve the color of this product. Do not rely on color or the 'use or freeze by' date alone to judge the freshness of the product. For best results please follow the Safe Handling Instructions."

Wow -- is this a move by Target to differentiate itself from other mainstream grocers in the actual information it gives to consumers about the products it supplies to them? If so, we could see other grocery retailers follow this model. It's a novel concept, you know -- actually empowering consumers with decision-making information. Kudos to Target here.

The Boston Globe reports that "For more than four years, a small team huddled in the Dunkin' Donuts research lab trying to crack the code for a doughnut without trans fats that tasted just like those on which the chain had built its reputation over the last half century."

And now, at last, they have done it. In a few weeks, Dunkin's 5,300 stores will introduce trans-fat free donuts. While they can hardly be considered a health food -- they still contain the same amount of total fat -- this has to be considered a major accomplishment. Just a few years ago, there was doubt about whether such a feat could be accomplished. Competitor (sort of like saying the Tampa Bay Devil Rays compete with the Yankees ...) Krispy Kreme Doughnuts (NYSE: KKD) is still working on a trans-fat free donut, and doesn't yet have anything ready to market.

What's next for these doughnut-engineers? How many years are we away from a truly healthy donut? Will fat-free, sugar-free ice cream ever taste like something other than opening the freezer and sticking your head in? All of this talk about healthy junk food reminds me a bit of alchemy, but researchers seem to be making progress.

But would a healthy donut even be fun? Or would it become to common-place to count as a treat, and lose its allure?

Restaurateurs are cheering a New York court's decision striking down a menu law implemented by the New York Board of Health. The law required fast-food restaurants to disclose on their menus how many calories were in their meals.

The Department of Health says it is disappointed its law was overturned on a "technicality", and that it will continue to explore ways to make it easier for the consumer to eat healthy. If you've ever tried to get nutritional information in a fast-food restaurant you know how hard it can be. If you have the foresight, you can get it quickly online, but I've been in McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) locations where I was told they did not have the information available on site. Even if they do, it can be a hassle, and displaying it on the menu is the logical way to make sure consumers have convenient access to the information they need to make a decision.

The idea of New York's law was very similar to the way our securities laws are in this country: It was based on clear and compulsory disclosure, rather than subjective requirements. A public company can have O.J. Simpson and Jose Canseco as its CEO and CFO, as long as it discloses the baggage they bring. Similarly, McDonald's should be allowed to serve whatever it wants -- but consumers should be warned that they may find themselves carrying extra baggage if they order the wrong item.

It's a shame that fast-food chains want to keep their customers in the dark about nutrition, and it's unfortunate that the court has stymied the Department of Health's efforts to provide the consumer with greater information.

School cafeterias are getting healthier and, amazingly, some parents are complaining about that.

According to The New York Times, they're upset that some school districts aren't letting kids bring in cupcakes to celebrate birthdays. And without in-school sales of baked goods, however shall parent-teacher associations raise money?

Texas parents even lobbied for a "safe cupcake amendment" (no joke) to be added to the state's school nutrition policy, to ensure that students could bring in the tasty treats for birthday parties. Their efforts were successful.

Given the burgeoning obesity epidemic, we should be applauding various school districts for removing deep fryers from their kitchens, using low-fat products, and switching from soda to water.

Are parents right to be complaining about the ban on cupcakes? I don't think so.

The idea of celebrating accomplishments/milestones with unhealthy foods -- and drowning sorrows with soda -- is one of the things that has led to the current crisis (Yes, 60% of America being overweight is a crisis). Instead of cupcakes for birthdays, how about walks in the woods or extra-recess time to play kickball or capture the flag? It might sound corny, but I think a lot of kids would find that more fun. And their waistlines would thank them.

And if PTO's can't raise money without selling junkfood, then they have a serious creativity deficit.