I do believe the two industries analagous. The auto industry does everything mandated by law to make a safe product. Some companies go above and beyond (Volvo).
McDonalds and BK do everything required by law to make a safe product. In terms of cleanliness, quality of food, rotation and handling, both go to extremes (at the corporate level) to maximize both use and safety.
Does every SUV have a rollover cage? No. Could it? Yes. Does that make the auto manufacturers liable for every rollover. Not unless the overall design is unsafe.
Do fast food producres use the leanest beef? No. Could they? Yes. [aside]I’d argue the leanest beef does not make the best burgers (too dry), but neither does the fattiest.[/aside] Is the overall design unsafe…?
I believe we differ in opinion on that last question. Fatty foods are not in and of themselves unsafe. That is my contention. Abuse of fatty foods is, just like driving a car 100 mph is. Even though the car goes 100 mph, you don’t have to drive it that fast, and it isn’t the manufacturer’s fault when you do. Or do you propose making the case that no car should be made that can top 70 mph? Even though overconsumption of fatty foods can lead to serious health problems, it should not be the manufacturers fault that you overconsume.
[wanda]That’s my story, I’m sticking with it.[/wanda]
I like the diamond analogy better. But I still feel it’s flawed. Personally, I believe that a company has a higher responsibility to the public at large if their product causes millions of deaths.
The point I’m trying to make is that a lower-fat alternative that is tastier than a Whopper/Big Mac with Supersized fries exists. The fast food industry refuses to make this product available. I have a major ethical problem with that, as everyone in this thread should.
Again, the alternative is not available to him, as I have stated above. Note also that I have always referred to the fast food industry as a whole, rather than hilighting a specific chain.
“The point I’m trying to make is that a lower-fat alternative that is tastier than a Whopper/Big Mac with Supersized fries exists. The fast food industry refuses to make this product available.”
As was pointed out, they did make this product available (the McLean Deluxe). It sold very, very poorly. They stopped selling it.
Apparently not enough people were making the responsible choice to eat it…much like this yahoo did not make the responsible choice to NOT repeatedly eat heartily of foods which were quite obviously high in fat.
So it looks like it’s this guy’s (and people like him) fault after all. Go figure.
“The fast food industry refuses to make this product available. I have a major ethical problem with that, as everyone in this thread should.”
Wait…what? I should find it unethical that fast food joints don’t stock healthy food? Unethical? I honestly do NOT understand what you mean. Should I also find it unethical that they do not carry food specifically for those who keep kosher or have other religious dietary requirements? Is it unethical that they don’t carry desserts suitable for diabetics?
I really don’t understand what ethics have to do with it. Should we also be after the movie theaters, on ethical grounds, since they only serve over-priced high-fat high-sugar treats?
It is my position that the law is woefully inadequate, given the extent of the problem. I believe that law suits, such as this one, are the only way that an individual can effectively pressure the fast food industry to make their product exponentially less dangerous.
As for your aside, I must direct you to my first post, in which I point out that the lean ground beef indicated beat regular ground beef in every category, including “juiciness”.
Again, I must point out that the automotive industry is forced by law to include safety measures that protect the lives of car owners, even those car owners that drive irresponsibly. Why shouldn’t the fast food industry do the same?
Cite for the millions of deaths please, and make sure it proves conclusively that their deaths were entirely caused by eating at fast food restarants and not due to not exercising and living unhealthy lifestyles.
Hamadryad, I’ve already addressed the Mclean Burger. Here it is again, from page 2.
Taa daa!
I dunno what to tell you about the ethics, thing, though. I mean, Company refuses to change product that kills millions so that product no longer kills millions. Seems simple to me.
No, they aren’t. They are required to meet certain minimum safety standards. Everything else is gravy.
Similarly, fast food restaurants are required to meet certain minimum requirements, as set forth by the FDA (for the food, and handling standards thereof – this includes making available upon request nutritional information for each product sold) and whatever local health agencies the restaurant may have to answer to (for the condition of the restaurant itself).
Accepting responsibility for what people do with the car once they get it, or the food once they get it, is not part of either’s requirements.
You’re right of course, Mr. Tarkas. I have been cheating. Add the words “is a major contributing factor to” before any death figures I’ve quoted in thread.
You are also correct, Sir Finch. As safe as possible was an exagerration. Replace that with my later statement, “the automotive industry is forced by law to include safety measures that protect the lives of car owners, even those car owners that drive irresponsibly.” This was what I intended to say.
No, I am not being silly - there is no such thing as “health food”. There is merely food. There issuch a thing as a healthy diet and lifestyle - but ANY type of food, consumed in reasonable quantities, can be included as a part of a healthy diet.
No, I do not see the difference there - overconsumption of either item leads to serious health problems. Excess is excess. Or are you seriously trying to argue that a person MUST consume fast food twice a week? Is there some sort of law requiring this that I’m unaware of? I haven’t eaten any fast food in weeks - how can I possibly have managed such a feat? Could it possibly be that I excercised my responsibility as a mature adult and chose different food items?
Oh by the way, (bolding my own), did you really mean to include this as an example? Because it’s pretty foolish of you to do so.
No, it’s not - it’s merely using the same reasoning that you’re applying to fast food consumption and applying it to another food item that can also be misused. People HAVE gone on strange food binges, such as “all grapefruit” diets, or eating a pound of carrots a day - by your logic, they should be able to sue the grocery stores for their resulting health problems.
The manufacturer’s intent is irrelevent in this case - it doesn’t matter how badly the fast food industry may want people to consume their foods “in excesss”, as they have no ability to compel people to do so. You are prefectly free to make other foood choices, and there is NOTHING McDonalds can do to stop you, however much they might like to.
And as for your analogy to cars and Federal regulations - car manufacturers are NOT required to make vehicles “as safe as possible” - because such a standard can never be met. They ARE required to meet certain minimun safety regulations that the government imposes; they are free to add additional safety features if they wish (and some, such as Volvo, do), but this is not a requirement. That situation is exactly analagous to the regulation of the fast food industry, which MUST comply with laws regulating the safe handling and storage of food, and MUST supply the consumer with nutritional information about their products - but are not required to go any further (although they are certainly free to alter their menus in whatever way they wish - and will do so if consumer demand is high enough).
Horsefeathers. The fact that another product exists does not obligate any restaurant to sell it, any more than the existence of Gardenburgers obligates them to sell it to me, a vegetarian. You know what my solution is? Take a wild guess. I don’t eat at fast food places. Unless I want a shake, or some fries.
The product is available, it just isn’t available at a burger joint. You can go into a grocery store, however, and buy all you want, and take home and cook and eat as much as you want. The fast food industry isn’t keeping it off the market, they just aren’t selling it. How anyone can argue otherwise with a straight face baffles me.
But you’re simply, and laughably, incorrect. This guy doesn’t live in the hinterlands of central Wyoming or something. He lives in New York Farkin’ City, in the Bronx. There is hardly a shortage of eatieries in New York, fer cryin’ out loud. He could eat anywhere he wanted, or cook for himself.
You’ll notice that he isn’t suing Mike’s Burger Joint or Steve’s Hot Dog Hut – he’s going after four particular chains with deep, deep pockets.
The idea that he could be 56 years old and not be aware that fatty foods were bad for you – after having two heart attacks!-- is ludicrous, and I hope to heaven the jury realizes that. Americans have been inundated with bad news about fat, cholesterol and fried foods for around 30 years now! Was this guy living in a cave on Mars with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears? When he started to get fat, did he ever think, “Wow, I wonder if it has something to do with eating at fast food places five times a week?” Or is he just willfully ignorant?
Every fast-food restaurant I’ve ever been in has the nutritional information posted on a big poster right by the counter. Burger King has for years touted their burgers as healthier than the competition’s because they are flame-broiled rather than fried. You can see the freaking kitchen from the counter, with the fries bubbling away in fat and the grease-covered grill. If this guy is not simply an opportunist looking for a buck, he may be functionally retarded.
was referring to the fact that you included seatbelts as an example of adult responsibility, when, in fact, most places have mandatory seat belt laws.
I note that both you and Darwin’s Finch spotted the same flaw in my reasoning vis a vis the automotive industry. I accept that I was in error.
I wish to state that I’m not particularly wedded to this suit in particular. In fact, if you’ll notice, I’ve never said one word in support of it. I believe the idea that Mr. Barbar was somehow bamboozled into believing fast food is healthy is very silly indeed. I’m looking, instead, at the fast food industry as a whole. And, under strictly Libertarian principles, I don’t have a leg to stand on. However, it’s not a libertarian country. We do, in fact, have drug laws, seat belt regulations, and other governmental actions that exist to protect people from their own irresponsible behavior. The fast food industry shouldn’t be exempt from these regulations.
Just to butt in here, grim spectre, are you seriously arguing that selling the McLean doesn’t count as trying to sell a healthy alternative (which people didn’t want) because the name let people know it was good for them? McDonald’s has a responsibility to not only sell healthy food but trick people into eating it? Should they have called it the McStroke to fool people into thinking it was bad for them so they’d eat it?
No, Giraffe. I’m not. I merely explained why the McLean failed, because certain persons were offering the false statement that it failed because it didn’t taste good. I’m saying that the failure of the McLean can not and should not be misconstrued as a valid obstacle to the replacement of the existing product with a product that isn’t so dangerous.
Why not? It didn’t sell the first time. How many failed products does it take before a company is allowed to continue selling what the public wants, even if it is bad for them?
Personally, I think the fast food industry sucks – the food is both unhealthy and nasty-tasting. However, there is obviously a demand for it. Most people like fatty food. I too would like to see healthier fast food available, but I don’t think litigation is even a remotely fair way to accomplish it. When a majority of people want to eat healthier fast food, the restaurants will quickly adapt. We’re not there yet.
grim (may I call you Fred?), you haven’t come close to proving the danger to anyone but yourself.
If your proof is acceptable, then every ice cream parlor needs to be immediately shut down. Potato chips and twinkies become black market items.
Fast food places do not self-regulate. Like the auto manufacturers, they have tons of safety regulations with which they must comply. Perhaps one day, the guvmint will say 80% lean is too little, up it to 85%, just like seatbelts went from an extra to a required device. Or maybe BK will learn how to properly market a leaner burger (do you think both haven’t given these ideas lots of thought?) that does indeed taste better. Sure you have a study you quoted from Auburn. I’ve something even better. As an amateur chef, I’ve experimented with the full gamut of lean ranges, plus I’ve read/watched professional chefs’ choices: neither the leanest or the least lean is best, flavor-wise, in personal taste tests or to professionals. I’d rather go for turkey burgers than ultra-lean beef burgers. There’s a reason rib-eyes and shell (NY strip) steaks are generally regarded as better than filet mignon. Fat contents (the marbling). There’s a reason more than a few establishments serve a bacon-wrapped filet (mmm, pork fat on tender, very lean beef). Just because Pepsi kept touting their blind taste tests doesn’t mean it’s actually better than Coke.
McLean didn’t sell. My guess is McDonald’s thought it did well enough in the test market to go national, where it flopped. If you want to blame marketing, go ahead. But would simply switching to leaner beef absolve McDonalds of all blame?
grim (may I call you Fred?), you haven’t come close to proving the danger to anyone but yourself.
If your proof is acceptable, then every ice cream parlor needs to be immediately shut down. Potato chips and twinkies become black market items.
Fast food places do not self-regulate. Like the auto manufacturers, they have tons of safety regulations with which they must comply. Perhaps one day, the guvmint will say 80% lean is too little, up it to 85%, just like seatbelts went from an extra to a required device. Or maybe BK will learn how to properly market a leaner burger (do you think both haven’t given these ideas lots of thought?) that does indeed taste better. Sure you have a study you quoted from Auburn. I’ve something even better. As an amateur chef, I’ve experimented with the full gamut of lean ranges, plus I’ve read/watched professional chefs’ choices: neither the leanest or the least lean is best, flavor-wise, in personal taste tests or to professionals. I’d rather go for turkey burgers than ultra-lean beef burgers. There’s a reason rib-eyes and shell (NY strip) steaks are generally regarded as better than filet mignon. Fat contents (the marbling). There’s a reason more than a few establishments serve a bacon-wrapped filet (mmm, pork fat on tender, very lean beef). Just because Pepsi kept touting their blind taste tests doesn’t mean it’s actually better than Coke.
McLean didn’t sell. My guess is McDonald’s thought it did well enough in the test market to go national, where it flopped. If you want to blame marketing, go ahead. (I didn’t try it, but I haven’t eaten a fast food burger in over a dozen years. I remember exit polls on the local news showing consumers harping on taste, but it was long ago and it might just be fuzzy memory). But would simply switching to leaner beef absolve McDonalds of all blame?
Let’s say you knock 10 grams of fat and the resulting 90 calories off of a Big Mac. Those fries are still going to clog your arteries tighter than a ant’s butt. It would be equivalent to ensuring that autos have breaks capable of stopping on a proverbial dime and ignoring tire tread.
Lastly, I couldn’t find on either McDonald’s or Burger King’s site the lean ratio for their burgers. Unless someone has solid data, the assumption being made is that it is the lowest. How would your assertion change if it weren’t? Also, KFC is included in the suit. That’s fried chicken, leaner than beef but cooked in the least healthy way possible. Are they also unethical? Are the purveyors of ice cream and Twinkies unethical?
You know what’s bizarre? While I was sitting on this computer, I was getting replies faster than I could keep up with – it didn’t help that I was involved in a wicked difficult game of Freecell (#25034, for the curious). As soon as I step out for a delightful night on the town with my CPF, bam! Only two replies. Strange. It’s almost as if you’re all figments of my imagination. dons tinfoil hat Ahh, at peace again.
Anyways… back to the point at hand.
Go ahead and call me Fred – on a side note, I find it weird to be called anything but Fred on a message board; kind of like how I feel funny when the SO calls me by my real name instead of “honey.” in any case, the danger to myself is yet to be seen. I found that after I gave up fast food for a few months (in an effort to save money of all things… listening, Rex? :)), the effect of eating fast food is a feeling of fundamental unhealthiness coursing through my body. Maybe it’s psychosomatic. shrug In any case, I stopped eating fast food more than once in a blue moon. The danger isn’t to me: it’s too people that eat it on a regular basis, and are in the habit of doing so. I would think that the correlation between the regular consumption of fast food and health risks has been proven to your satisfaction. Unless you disagree?
I’d say that although preference differs from person to person, Pepsi can indeed say that more people like Pepsi than like Coke by taste alone. Of course, in the real world, things are more complicated. I’ve always said that if Diet Soda really does taste exactly like the regular, as every Diet Pop commercial from time immemorial has stated, they should just replace them. The fast food industry has the opportunity to do the same: replace their extremely unhealthy products (burgers and fries) with merely unhealthy ones, thereby saving lives. And the kicker is that no one would be able to tell the difference. The problem lies in the fact that they have no impetus to do so.
You know, I find your “Solve the whole problem or don’t do anything at all” approach bizarre. Why not take some steps? Better to improve a little than not at all, in my view.
Special Director’s Commentary Edition Post
I notice I’ve said the word “Bizarre” a total of a gazillion times during the course of this thread: pretty much once a post (Twice in this particular post). I attribute this frequency to Bill Murray’s character in The Royal Tenenbaums, which I watched recently.