I had thought that sanity had prevailed (in American courtrooms), when the obesity lawsuit against MckD’s was thrown out, a few years back. Just this morning, however, I heard that a judge would allow one of these stupid (frivolous) lawsuits to go ahead. the grounds? Deceptive advertising!!
Come on, every fast food restaurant has a HUGE billboard with a list of the juk food they purver, with the fat and CALORIC contents of each and every food item they sell!
Man, if this suit succeeds, I want to invest in a law firm…there’ll be BILLION :wally S in lawsuits against fast food, alcohol, drugs, skateboards, ski slopes, etc.
Interesting topic. However:
-
If this is a debate, where’s the link?
-
If this is a rant, why’s it in GD instead of the Pit?
This argument doesn’t hold true, because one of the main reasons they started providing this information (which is a fairly recent development) was because of the threat of legal action over their failure to identify their food as potentially dangerous.
Of course, no regular restaurants are required to analyze and provide the nutritional values of their food. Most restaurants would be completely unable to do the analysis in the first place.
I am very sick and tired of products deemed unsafe via lawsuit in industries that are tightly regulated where the product is sold within all government guidelines for safety and quality of product. I’m looking at YOU cigarette lawsuits, you started this nonsense, and here we are.
If their food is unsafe, the FDA needs to step in and shut their operation down.
[Moderator Hat ON]
To da Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
[url=]The story
If I’m reading the story correctly, the suit was dismissed because the judge decided the plaintiffs didn’t have sufficient evidence to support the claim of a link between eating at McDonald’s and their obesity. The appeals court analyzed the specific consumer law under which the suit was filed in New York State and reversed, stating the plaintiffs would be allowed to conduct discovery.
Pretty standard stuff IMHO for a product liability claim, which is what I understand this suit to be.
What a load of shit. Stop stuffing that crap in your mouth and maybe you wo’t have a heart attack at 14. Last I checked, no one forced people to eat big macs at gunpoint.
I can see it if the ads are deceptive, or if the listed nutritional information is fraudulent, then there might be some basis for a suit. But so far the worst I’ve heard (from that documentary that makes Michael Moore look credible by comparison) is that the nutritional info is often hidden or missing at a lot of restaurants. That could be a possible basis for a claim, but a really really weak one.
I don’t see a claim at all. Anyone misguided enough to think eating that crap 24/7 is healthy should fall victim to Darwin.
As the sane judge who threw it out the last time said
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/26/fast.food.lawsuit.ap/index.html
Are you referring to “Super Size Me”? I wasn’t aware that any of his points were under attack. Personally I would say much of the degradation of his body during the film was due to the “shock” of suddenly switching to heavy fat diet from a rather healthy lifestyle. So one criticism could be his results aren’t typical.
From that movie I seem to remember that part of the dismissal judgment said something like
a successful suit might be brought if
a) the company promoted itself as being able to supply ALL your daily food needs (breakfeast,lunch,dinner& snacks)
b) doing so was long term harmful.
And that those hadn’t been fully shown.
ISTM that Super Size Me tried to show at least b), and that McD was at least set up for a). I don’t think he was out to get McD’s just make people think about what they put into their body.
Rephrasing a) your nutrional needs for a day are promoted as being available and b) that they are in fact not available.
Has a McDonald’s attorney/spokesman actually said “We don’t actually want you to eat here all the time.”? Just curious, this is touchy territory for them I’m sure.
I just watched it a few days ago and yet I can’t remember it all. But two things stuck out to me – one, he didn’t opt for diet sodas that McD sells, and two, he stopped exercising. That strikes me as a bit unfair.
Also, in that movie and in the lawsuits, McD is implicated. But what about Burger King, Wendy’s, KFC, and Arby’s? Are people going after the clown simply because he’s the biggest chain? Seems to me to be like suing Coke over the sugar content of their drinks while giving Pepsi a bye.
Except for a few health food restaurants, I don’t see any restaurants making that claim.
All right-that’s it! I need new glasses.
I thought the OP/title said McKD’s sued for obscenity …I clued in about the third post.
I, too, think these suits are insane and impossible to win. I am concerned re: the complete immoral stance that giants like McD’s take towards kids. The persuasion etc in the ads, the toys etc–I fight this battle daily with my youngest (I’m winning, I think).
But other than legislating morality (oxymoron, that)–I don’t see a way forward.
I submit that healthy foods are available at McDonalds. That these losers never chose them, or chose them infrequently is not McD’s problem.
They offer plain eggs, pancakes, english muffins and biscuts for breakfast. You have a variety of salads, with and without grilled chicken, lowfat dressing. Grilled chicken sandwiches, which are very lean when you ask for no mayo. Plain burgers which are pretty lean in comparison to sauce laden burgers. Fruit and yogurt parfait, with and without granola. Orange juice, apple juice, lowfat milk, unsweetened iced tea, coffee and diet sodas.
Can’t find anything healthy at McDonalds? You’re not looking at their menu.
Can I sue my local supermarket because I only buy potato chips and frozen pizza, turning myself into Jabba the Hut?
According to that movie, the parfaits are just as fat and sugar laden as the sundaes.
True, not really fair but he did it for a reason. He wanted to get the same amount of exercise that the “average American” gets according to statistics. I don’t remember specifics on the diet soda but he seemed pretty upfront about his process and reasoning, right or wrong.
Well of course partially yes, it’s cause they are biggest. I guess because that’s where these kids ate most, the lawyers were willing to run with this case. I’m not sure who could or how a single lawsuit could be brought up simultaneously against all large fastfood chains. The movie rides on McD’s coattails for publicity but other restaurant chains definately get mentioned. The creepiest part of the movie was when he was interviewing some young kids who almost seemed patritic to their Burger of choice. Wierd stuff.
Actually I don’t see that from health food places- most I know don’t do breakfast. Obviously the original judge agreed with you.
(BTW- I was just thinking about this the other day because I saw a commercial almost specifically say it- my first thought was "Didn’t these guys see that movie 
I’ll keep my ears and VCR perked.)
[QUOTE=tdnBut what about Burger King, Wendy’s, KFC, and Arby’s? Are people going after the clown simply because he’s the biggest chain? Seems to me to be like suing Coke over the sugar content of their drinks while giving Pepsi a bye.[/QUOTE]
Once they have a fat settlement / winning under their belts, the greedy scumbag lawyers will leverage every cent out of everyone mentioned above.
Shaking that money tree.
I usually let spelling errors go but I’ve got to correct one of them from that last post:
The creepiest part of the movie[Super Size Me] was when he was interviewing some young kids who almost seemed patriotic to their Burger of choice.
From the McDonalds website, the non-granola parfait has 130 calories, 2g fat, 25g carbs 4g protein. Throw in 30 more calories and a few carbs for the granola. I don’t think that’s outrageous for a sweetened yogurt and fruit product, nor is it a particularly unhealthy dessert. The strawberry sundae (the healthiest one) is about double that across the board.