Fast Food Lawsuit

Great Debates
81

VW_Woman, fair enough. Putting aside the nature of addiction to food, however, there is an issue of probability to consider. Nicotine is considerably more addictive than food, in that considerably higher percentage of people are unable to control their cravings for it. I have seen stats that up to 80% of nicotine users become addicted.
This relates to the reasonability of the conduct of fast food companies as compared to cigarette companies. A fast food company is not reasonably on notice that a particular customer will become addicted to its products and should therefore not be provided with the product. Tobacco companies, arguably, are.

Sua

82

Not necessarily. If by “people” you mean other customers, then yes, few would know how frequently you dined there unless they were there every day, all day, and saw everyone who came and went. If you mean employees, however, it is quite possible that an employee or two will recognize you. I worked at McD’s for four years, and I recognized a couple of my regulars two years after I quit.

83

Sure is. This offers more accessible information:

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/

84

There are many types of addictions out there, not just drugs.

If, legally and/or clinically people are recognized to be addicted to sex, or addicted to pornography, or gambling, or anything else really, when you consider the possibility of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Once could very well be addicted to internet message boards.

So, the plaintiffs, who people on this board have been calling “fat,” “lazy,” and “idiots,” might really be clinically sick.

The fact that many people in this thread are merely flaming about this case, calling them names, is really disappointing.

There’s a lot more to “debate” than just insulting those you don’t agree with, and making rash generalisations about groups of people.

A productive thread would have moved on to look at why fast food companies have so much pull on contemporary society, and thier shady (though completely legal) advertising schemes. What can we do to raise awareness about nutrition, the dangers of over-eating, and promoting a well-balanced diet? These are the questions at hand, which should be being tackled.

G8trguy, you said “The rest of us are simply saying that if some particular negative consequence is due solely to your own actions, you shouldn’t expect someone else to compensate you for it.”

Well, just about every dangerous product out on the market has a warning on it. Toys, airbags, fans, plastic bags, any piece of electronics, etc. all have warning labels on them. Why shouldn’t fast food companies, similarly, have these types of warning labels? Not offensive labels, just informative ones. Sure, the nutritional data is available, but not everyone (esp. children) has the mental faculties to interpret the data given. Therefore, more precise, direct, and realistic warnings should be attached to fast food items. Above anything, the customer should be as informed as possible about the product he or she is buying.

If these warnings aren’t necessarily apparent, the customer can’t be held acountable for them.

Can you argue against this?

Sure, you can say “well, it’s just common sense.” Well, how, exactly, should we measure and define this “common sense.” What do we do with the people who fail the “Common sense test”?

Best,

TGD

85

Yeah. Physical and psychological additictions. Lock a “porn addict” up and let 'im go cold-turkey and he won’t even blink. Lock a heroin addict up and he may die. See the difference?

**

How 'bout (not YOU in particular, but the nannies you’re talking about) shutting the hell up? I’m sick of being yammered at by people who claim to only have my best interests at heart. I don’t want or need people to “raise my awareness”.

**

**
A) because fast food isn’t dangerous.
B) Because I’m sick of idiot warning labels. “Warning: Big Mac contains MEAT”. Well duh. Y’know what? A lot of us are sick of this sort of crap. I don’t want or need a warning on a toothpick that says “Caution: Do not insert into eyeball”. And the problem is that you’re advocating increasing this sort of hysterical nannnyism. I’m against it.

**

**
Yup. Used to be there was a concept called “reasonableness”. If some moron decided to stick a toothpick into his eyeball, it was his own damned lookout. Now, because of people who advocate the sort of things you are, this moron could get a multi-million dollar settlement and the toothpick company has to go through the expense of printing labels with warnings that’ll satsify nanny-types.

Society should not have to cater to the lowest common denomiator.

Fenris

86

Society should not have to cater to the lowest common denomiator.

Love it!

(Seriously)

87

**Society should not have to cater to the lowest common denomiator. **

Oooh, Fenris, may I take this as a sig???

88

You recognized them because they came in during your shifts - what if someone came in during different shifts? Less likely that you’d recognize them. But anyway, that’s my point - he’d have to prove he was there frequently, and unless he went during the same shifts all the time, that might be tough to prove (even more so if the restaurants in question had high employee turnover).

89

I think it’s very odd that some people in this debate are simply assuming that the suit will be successful, and indicting the state of society based on that presumption. Isn’t that a bit premature?

Personally I think that our courts are one of the most important institutions in this country. Why impugn them, or the country, simply because a suit has been brought on what assumes to be specious grounds? Sua, a lawyer, seems to think that the plaintiffs will face an uphill climb.

Where is the evidence that things in our country have reached such a pass that even the most reasonable demands for individual responsibility are discounted by courts? Can anyone provide a cite for a successful suit in which plaintiff won damages on grounds that seem dubious? This entire thread may well be much hysterical ado about nothing.

Fenris: “Now, because of people who advocate the sort of things you are, this moron could get a multi-million dollar settlement and the toothpick company has to go through the expense of printing labels with warnings that’ll satsify nanny-types.”

Really? Is dalmuti really that powerful?

If I didn’t know better Fenris, I’d say that you feel yourself to be victimized by social trends perpetuated by nanny-types. Next thing you know you’ll be expecting the government to do something about it ;).

90

Only if you circumvent Gaudere’s Law and spell “denominator” correctly! :wink:

Fenris

91

I disagree. This case isn’t about “raising awareness”, nor is it about promoting nutrition or a balanced diet. It’s about dodging responsibility. The ultimate question is, “Who is responsible for what I stick in my mouth?” These folks would have us believe it isn’t them.

Fast food restaurants are not the only place wherein one can obtain the trappings for a non-balanced, unhealthy meal. Yet they are being singled out – why?

Unless one can show that either these companies use subliminal advertising in order to coerce people into buying their food, or that their food is, in and of itself, addictive (which rules out the plaintiffs’ ability to collect based any sort of eating disorder), I see the the case as groundless.

92

Even if this idiot’s suit isn’t successful, McDonalds will have to spend money, lots of it, to defend themselves against a patently idiotic suit (or worse, settle). This will make them likely to 1) change their food, 2) put up stupid, “lowest common denominator” warnings (“WARNING: FRIES ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE STUFFED INTO NOSTRILS!”) which annoy the hell out of me and increase costs, however slightly and/or 3) raise the costs of their food to offset the costs of paying morons for their moronic acts.

As to how powerful I think dalmuti is, I dunno. Probably not much. But but lobbying groups advocating the same sort of nonsense that he is, yeah. They are that powerful. Just try to get good movie popcorn cooked in coconut oil anymore.

Do I feel victimized? Victimized is a strong word…annoyed as hell is probably much closer. I’m sick of nannies “doing stuff for my own good.” May I point you to my post in this thread for my feelings regarding Food and Safety Facists? (I’d quote it, but it’s probably inappropriate for GD)

Do I want the government doing something about it? Unless there’s some way to set a legal standard for “reasonableness” and good science (and I don’t know if there is), then no. I don’t see a lot that the government can do. All I can do, therefore, is speak out against it.

I would like to see a law passed saying “We, The People, have a right to kneecap any moron who lobbies for a law saying either “Pass this law which protects me from myself” or worse, “Pass this law which protects you from yourself”.” But outside of Libertarians, I doubt I’ll find a whole lot of agreement. :wink:

Fenris

93

Here, btw, are some interesting citations on obesity and fast food. Please note that I do not post these by way of arguing that the suit will be successful. (I doubt it will be). Rather, I post these to suggest that there’s a problem out there needs to be addressed beyond the level of bashing the suit and upholding individual responsibility as though it in itself will address what is now being called an epidemic in obesity.

Obviously individual responsibility is a very good thing. But it doesn’t change the fact that calorie-laden and caffeine-laden soda pop and fast food are now being served up to kids in public schools (which is one thing I think should be legislated against).

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA0201Obsessed_with_Fast_food.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity-epidemic.htm

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v287n22/ffull/jlt0612-3.html

94

Fenris, please provide evidence that the cost of defending against this suit is likely to result in a rise in costs to consumers.

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the suit is unsuccessful but that fast food merchandisers respond to this as well as to other publicity already surrounding their role in obesity by taking the following measures:

  1. They begin to offer more “fast” healthy foods; say a version of the Big Mac that has half the calories.

  2. They provide some basic literature on the premises about how to balance fast food meals with other more healthy kinds of meals.

  3. To win contracts in public schools they agree to provide a large variety of healthy kids meals and to promote health and nutrition as a public service to these schools.

Any problems here for you?

95

Well, quite frankly, the case is almost literally impossible to win. On top of everything else, the plaintiffs will never be able to prove causation. Sure they gained weight and got health problems from eating McDonalds, but it would be impossible for them to demonstrate that they wouldn’t have gained the weight and had the health problems if they had never set foot inside a fast food joint. They may very well have set themselves up on a diet of Ben & Jerry’s instead.

But, as Fenris has pointed out, it’s going to cost the companies money anyway, and they may very well settle just to avoid the bad publicity.
And that’s really what frosts me. The plaintiffs (or at least their attorneys) know they have no shot in hell of winning this lawsuit. But they also know that the fast food companies are very likely to give them some money to avoid the costs and embarrassment of the lawsuit.
As you noted, the courts are indeed one of the most important institutions in the country. They shouldn’t be used for extortion. There is no other word for what the plaintiffs are attempting.

As for your last points, all of them cost money. And that makes prices go up. But, more to the point, why should the fast food companies have to do any of that? It’s not their job. Just because something is a social good doesn’t mean that people or companies should have to do them.

Sua

96

You know what?

I like McDonalds. Yes, there, I said it. I like their fries. I like their McNuggets.

That said, I do not eat them all the time. Because after eating them, I usually feel bloated and headachy from too much salt and grease.

Honestly, I can’t imagine anyone going in there and thinking this kind of food will be healthy. You HAVE to know what it’s going to do to your system.

97

Nah. Sorry. I have better things to do than to hunt for a cite that proves that increased business expenses tend to get passed on to consumers. I’m not in the mood to play the standard “You need a cite to prove the obvious” GD game. As this violates GD tradition, feel free to dismiss my point, I conceed that by GD’s mores and unwritten rules, this portion of my argment can now be considered invalid if you so choose. It’s barely central to my other points in any case.

**

They did. Remember the McLean? Went over like mayo on ice-cream. No one bought it. There was also (IIRC) a test-marketed McVeggieBurger which made consumers McBarf. No one wanted it, despite the Food Facists shreiking about the huge demand. McDonalds must’ve taken a McBath over those fiascos.

**

**
A) This increases costs. See the first point in this post for the only defense I’m going to give to any requests for a cite that increased business costs get passed on to consumers.

B) Nutritional information is already available (at least in every fast food resturant I’ve been in in the last 10 years). It’s posted AND given out on request so you can take it home and study it. My dad was on Weight Watchers and collected those nutrition charts for a while to see what and how much of it he could eat.

Someone needs more info about how to make better meals, let 'em go to a library or a bookstore. McDonald’s job is to serve burgers, not be the consumer’s mommy and help them with meal-planning. Do you want them to McBurp people too? Hey! Maybe they could provide a helpful list of McTips to do comparison shopping…or better! They could, for every burger you buy, have a McPerson go to the store for you and buy you nutritious, healthy food. And the McPerson should have the authority to send you to bed without supper if you don’t finish your spinach!

C’mon. I don’t want you OR McDonalds to nag me to eat right when all I want is a gawddamned burger.

**

Yup. Twofold.

  1. Kids will eat what they want to eat. In Elementary school, remember the poor kid who’s mom made him bean-sprout sandwiches and he had to trade his entire lunch for a single cupcake? Same deal. You can provide the food, you can’t make 'em eat it. Having McDonald’s provide McHealthy meals ignores the reality of the McMarketplace. I heard my old high-school ended up getting a McDonalds because, despite school rules, kids were leaving the campus to get decent tasting food and there was some sort of liability issue with the kids leaving.

Have McDonald’s start selling McHealthy Meals, kids’ll start (or continue) to leave campus to go to Taco Bell or Burger King or get a REAL McBurger. Consumer demand drives the marketplace, not the wishes of the Food Fascists.

  1. Nanny-types who want to “promote” something should do it with their own damn money not someone else’s, and the school has no business promoting much of anything. School should be about math, science*, art, literature, etc.

You want to “promote” good nutrition, start a fund, collect money from like-minded people and have voluntary after-school classes.

McDonald’s is selling a harmless legal product. There’s no reason to penalize them.

Fenris

*real science, not propaganda of the “Center for Science in the Public Interest”-style hysteria. Not that nutrition isn’t science, but there’s a world of difference between “teaching” nutrition and “promoting” nutrition.

98

Hmm… things have heated up nicely since I posted my screed last night. Just so as not to be accused of ducking your question, dalmuti, what Fenris said. In any event, even without warnings, if my head starts to hurt after I’ve beat it with a hammer 20 times, I should be expected to realize that perhaps beating my head with the hammer is not a particularly bright idea, even if the hammer company does not in fact warn me about this. But it would make a darn nice lawsuit, wouldn’t it?

99

Point very well taken, though I wasn’t really disputing it. :slight_smile: I did want to add, though, that not every McD’s worker works consistently the same hours each week, or day, even. There aren’t real shifts, like a 6am-3pm, or 3pm-midnight; you work the hours you’re available. This can result in someone working 8am-5pm one day and noon-9pm the next. So it’s still possible to recognize a regular patron who comes in at inconsistent times.

Excellent point about employee turnover, though. Fast Food Nation claims that the typical fast food employee is fired or quits every three to four months. If he needs witnesses, he may have a tough time tracking people down.

100

Here’s the main problem, as I see it:

People don’t want McDonalds to stop serving the kinds of foods they do, and start serving us McHealth.

What they want, is, deep down, to be able to eat all the McDonalds they want, without the risks.

I wonder if these people STILL eat at McDonalds.

Seriously.

I’m not being nasty. But I think this lawsuit says way more about the person filing it than it does about McDonalds.