or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › McDonalds made my childern fat! Not!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

McDonalds made my childern fat! Not!!!  

post #1 of 269
Thread Starter 
Cnn has reported that the judge in the "McDonalds made my childeren fat" lawsuit has dismissed the case.

[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: ThinkingDifferent ]</p>
post #2 of 269
Thank god, didnt these people ever hear of salad, protein and excersize?
post #3 of 269
"I knowingly ate non-nutricious food constantly and it made me fat"

You lose.

"I knowingly inhaled non-healthy smoke constantly and it gave me cancer"

You win.

America is stupid.

[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: 709 ]</p>
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
post #4 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent:
<strong>Cnn has reported that the judge in the "McDonalds made my childeren fat" lawsuit has dismissed the case.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Won't last. Why? Too much money to be gained.
post #5 of 269
There's no evidence that McDonalds puts chemicals inside its food in order to create addicts. McDonalds has never claimed that its food is not unhealthy.

Cigarettes on the other hand...
post #6 of 269
Didnt think it would get anywhere thank god!
To think that the ilk associated with this case would get anywhere.
trevorM

- Apple Dual 1.85Ghz Power Mac G5, 2Gb, 80Gb, Superdrive, Bluetooth, Airport.
- Apple 30" Cinema HD
- Apple 800Mhz Powerbook G4, 512Mb, 40Gb, Combo drive, Airport
trevorM

- Apple Dual 1.85Ghz Power Mac G5, 2Gb, 80Gb, Superdrive, Bluetooth, Airport.
- Apple 30" Cinema HD
- Apple 800Mhz Powerbook G4, 512Mb, 40Gb, Combo drive, Airport
post #7 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>There's no evidence that McDonalds puts chemicals inside its food in order to create addicts. McDonalds has never claimed that its food is not unhealthy.

Cigarettes on the other hand...</strong><hr></blockquote>

What do they put in cigarettes?
post #8 of 269
I'm going to go against the grain and say that is a bad ruling. The war against BigFat is only beginning. The tobacco companies were once invincible too.
post #9 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>There's no evidence that McDonalds puts chemicals inside its food in order to create addicts. McDonalds has never claimed that its food is not unhealthy.

Cigarettes on the other hand...</strong><hr></blockquote>


I'm not talking about the corporate (dis)information here. What I'm talking about is the fact that people willingly abuse their bodies. Smoke, alcohol, fat, drugs, whatever. If a person has more than 2 firing synapses then they could probably figure out the obvious. Smoking cigarettes everyday gives you cancer. Eating McDonald's everyday make you fat. That should be easy right? Um. No.

And, to reference your post, there's no evidence yet, because our watchdogs haven't set their sights on the FF industry yet (that's Fast Food, not French Fries). They will. And as far as being unhealthy, well, they've never exactly come out with a study on how healthy their stuff is either. In fact, the closest thing I can remember is McD comparing how their food 'stacked up' (a little burger humor there) to the competition (BK).
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
post #10 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>

What do they put in cigarettes?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Tar and nicotine among other things. I can vaguely remember documentation that proved the companies were messing with natural levels simply to get people addicted. Whatever it was, it was (obviously) illegal.

EDIT: I do feel like there is something wrong with both the lawsuit and the conclusion. I fully expect people to be responsible for their actions, and definitely anyone 30 years or old should be more than aware of the health risks of McDonald's. But to me it's sick and wrong that the corporations target kids well before they're old enough to understand what healthy food really is. They understand Happy Meals and big purple scary lookin' things. Adversiting could be limited perhaps.

[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #11 of 269
Well those two things are in there already, right? Some people say they added extra to make people smoke more but ... I've never read that anywhere.
post #12 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>There's no evidence that McDonalds puts chemicals inside its food in order to create addicts. McDonalds has never claimed that its food is not unhealthy.

Cigarettes on the other hand...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Mebbe not, but can anyone say for certain what goes into the Colonel's "Eleven herbs and spices?" Sorry, a Mike Myers moment.

Scott, actually, it's well documented that cigarette company chemists specifically tailored the chemicals in cigarettes to spike the effect of nicotine, in essence to increase their addictive properties, if you don't want to read about it there's a little Russel Crowe film about it.
IBL!
IBL!
post #13 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>I'm going to go against the grain and say that is a bad ruling. The war against BigFat is only beginning. The tobacco companies were once invincible too.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Lawyer wanna be. I'd bet the reason you think it's bad is because it limits lawyer greed.

SPJ if you want to effect some social change DO IT WITHOUT SUING COMPANIES THAT MAKE LEGAL PRODUCTS. The court system is not the proper place to bring about social change in the US. Learn that now and never forget it.
post #14 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>Well those two things are in there already, right? Some people say they added extra to make people smoke more but ... I've never read that anywhere.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I do remember it was well documented and eventually was made public. I think the first company to admit guilt (some relatively little company that got of relatively easily as compared to the big tobacco companies that held on until the end.) They produced documents that showed collusion among the companies that ultimately was considered illegal.

It was years ago though. I'm sure google would be able to help us both....
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #15 of 269
The Insider was an excellent, excellent film with great performances from Russell Crowe, Al Pacino, and Christopher Plummer.

THE ISSUE here is once again being looked at through very narrow perspectives. The idea that McDonalds could have any responsibility in the fattening of America is painted as utterly ridiculous by those opposed to holding Big Fat accountable. "Personal responsibility" is the buzzword used by opponents to stymie any arguments against the Fat Food companies. NOW I think that's ridiculous. One cannot paint this as an "either/or" situation. It's most certainly a combination of personal responsibility and BigFat's societal responsibility for the fattening of America.

JUST WHAT do obesity related illnesses cost our country? Billions of dollars? How much longer are we willing to let Fat Food companies profit from the fattening of America? The answer eludes me. I DON'T KNOW where to draw the line. BUT let's be realistic. Big Fat should play a greater role in helping stop America's destructive addiction to fast food. And a way to do this that should satisfy everyone is to FREE INFORMATION from its current lockdown. What I mean is that more should be done to promote the awareness of nutrition facts. They should be placed PROMINENTLY in all restaraunts. They should be on all packaging. Fast food should be taken out of schools, it should be scrutinized for being aimed at children who don;'t know any better. Remove soda and candy machines from schools. This benefits no one but the coffers of large Fat Food corporations.


THIS isn't brain surgery, folks. The status quo needs to be scrutinized for fattening America.
post #16 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>
SPJ if you want to effect some social change DO IT WITHOUT SUING COMPANIES THAT MAKE LEGAL PRODUCTS.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know if I agree with that. Small business is pretty harmless, but big business (McDonald's included) is virtually impossible for the average citizen to compete against. You can't out lobby them. You can't out advertise them. You can barely keep their influence in your own life down to a minimum. When a corporation oversteps the law, I think the courts are the best place to handle it.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #17 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong> Remove soda and candy machines from schools. This benefits no one but the coffers of large Fat Food corporations.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Christ. I never even considered the idea that a candy machine would be put in a school. That's insane.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #18 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>

Lawyer wanna be. I'd bet the reason you think it's bad is because it limits lawyer greed.

SPJ if you want to effect some social change DO IT WITHOUT SUING COMPANIES THAT MAKE LEGAL PRODUCTS. The court system is not the proper place to bring about social change in the US. Learn that now and never forget it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You could have conveyed the same thing without the personal attack. I won't respond in kind. But I think your argument is without merit because tobacco companies make legal products as well. Futhermore, the legality of something is by no means a justification for itself.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
post #19 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong> The court system is not the proper place to bring about social change in the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>Why not?
post #20 of 269
You know, I have to agree in a sense, the food and drug administration (in the US) has basically caved to big corps that want to deliver food in the cheapest way possible. Hormones, GMO's, pesticides, preservatives, artificial ingredients etc etc...

If you start with McD's you have to just keep going untill you catch just about every major food processor, Dole, Monsanto, Pepsico, Coke, DelMonte, Kraft, everybody! The problem is that they lobbied very successfully to degrade the quality of your food for conveniences sake (for high yield and easy delivery. Wherever they've acted, they've done so within the law, even where they law has been extensively modified/advantageously created to suit their desires, they have still acted within the law.

A very interesting lawsuit would be to sue the agencies and beauracrats that sold your health and dietary well being to the highest bidder, if such a thing is even possible.
IBL!
IBL!
post #21 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>
If you start with McD's you have to just keep going untill you catch just about every major food processor, Dole, Monsanto, Pepsico, Coke, DelMonte, Kraft, everybody! </strong><hr></blockquote>

I guess it depends on what constitutes an illegal action. If McDonald's hasn't silently been putting physically addictive substances in their food, then they're fine. If Coke is still hiding cocaine in their ingredients (or some other substance they know to be physically addictive) then there's probably a good case against them.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #22 of 269
I was thinking it a bit differently actually. If you're going to sue McDonalds for acting within their rights and within the bounds of the law, and you're going to do it based on a principle that the distribution of rights has led to an abusive state of affairs, is your case really with McDonalds or with the people who allowed the law to develop into the current status quo or with both? I'm asking honestly, I wonder about the likelihood and feasibility of all this legal pursuit. To mind, McDonalds is just one of many food distributors who have seriously impacted the quality of food to the detriment of all. Can we sue them when we basically enabled them to do it? I'm not sure that's right.
IBL!
IBL!
post #23 of 269
I'm not sure what the law says about that, Matsu.
post #24 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>The Insider was an excellent, excellent film with great performances from Russell Crowe, Al Pacino, and Christopher Plummer.

THE ISSUE here is once again being looked at through very narrow perspectives. The idea that McDonalds could have any responsibility in the fattening of America is painted as utterly ridiculous by those opposed to holding Big Fat accountable. "Personal responsibility" is the buzzword used by opponents to stymie any arguments against the Fat Food companies. NOW I think that's ridiculous. One cannot paint this as an "either/or" situation. It's most certainly a combination of personal responsibility and BigFat's societal responsibility for the fattening of America.

JUST WHAT do obesity related illnesses cost our country? Billions of dollars? How much longer are we willing to let Fat Food companies profit from the fattening of America? The answer eludes me. I DON'T KNOW where to draw the line. BUT let's be realistic. Big Fat should play a greater role in helping stop America's destructive addiction to fast food. And a way to do this that should satisfy everyone is to FREE INFORMATION from its current lockdown. What I mean is that more should be done to promote the awareness of nutrition facts. They should be placed PROMINENTLY in all restaraunts. They should be on all packaging. Fast food should be taken out of schools, it should be scrutinized for being aimed at children who don;'t know any better. Remove soda and candy machines from schools. This benefits no one but the coffers of large Fat Food corporations.


THIS isn't brain surgery, folks. The status quo needs to be scrutinized for fattening America.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Your definition of social responsibility is so broad as to be meaningless. The restaurants supply food, and jobs. They do so at a reasonable price and pay reasonable wages considering the nature of the work.

Exactly how much more would you expect them to do?

As for your claim of locked down information that needs freeing. For years I have seen large posters in lots of McDonalds Restaurants that display the nutritional information for all the items they sell. I also know that the information is also available on request.

Additionally they do offer healthy food, however people simply choose not to buy it.

There is a big difference between being responsible and a nanny-state. McDonalds does offer choices.

American's are simply reaping the benefits of what we sow. If you are going to sue McDonalds for contributing to obesity. You had better sue ISP's, software developers, and computer hardware makers because the largest crowd of fat people on the planet is likely computer users.

Likewise you had better sue television makers, cable and satellite services, and all entertainment companies for inexpensively providing all the entertainment that keeps so many glued to their couches for 5+ hours a day (On average) instead of exercising.

Though I am sure the trial lawyers will get around to these folks eventually.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #25 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>Well those two things are in there already, right? Some people say they added extra to make people smoke more but ... I've never read that anywhere.</strong><hr></blockquote>

From <a href="http://www.jeffreywigand.com/insider/who.html" target="_blank">Jeffrey Wiggand's actual testimony to the WHO</a>: (warning - Safari doesn't like this web page)

[quote]<strong>Tobacco companies also manipulate nicotine levels in cigarettes in an effort to keep customers addicted. I know firsthand that efforts were made to change the pH of tobacco through the use of ammonia generating additives, in order to convert total nicotine to free nicotine, so that greater amounts would be pharmacologically active. Tobacco companies utilize blending techniques, changing the ratio of flue-cured to burley tobacco as a way of assuring the appropriate nicotine level. They also change the pH by using ammonia as an additive, to provide increased nicotine uptake by the body. The tobacco industry intentionally uses over 599 chemical additives which facilitate and maintain addiction, ameliorate the harshness of tobacco smoke and increase the effectiveness of nicotine, as well as unintentional residual additives from pesticides, agricultural chemicals, soil bacterial flora and manufacturing processes. Many of these additives when burned generate a more toxic tar then tobacco burned without the inclusion of these additives.

Brown and Williamson even investigated a genetically engineered tobacco called Y-1, a breeding project conducted in New Jersey, and later commercially grown in Brazil by exporting tobacco seed germplasm illegally. The intent behind Y-1 was to manage the tar-to-nicotine ratio. If you can have less mass of tobacco at higher nicotine content, you would essentially be reducing the negative aspects of smoking, as you would be reducing tar while maintaining the nicotine delivery at a constant level. That was a way of managing the tar to nicotine ratios, while lowering the tar yet maintaining the nicotine. Y-1 tobacco was incorporated into some B&W brands.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now you've read it somewhere.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: tonton ]</p>
post #26 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>
To mind, McDonalds is just one of many food distributors who have seriously impacted the quality of food to the detriment of all. Can we sue them when we basically enabled them to do it? I'm not sure that's right.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's more than just making bad food though, at least in my mind. It's motive and diliberate harmful actions I think. The laws that are in place might be fine, but if they're willfully being subverted then the corp is responsible.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #27 of 269
I had that thread about personal responsibility a while back, and this fits into my belief about that. We can wring our hands and say people should just eat right, but obesity just recently passed tobacco as the leading underlying cause of death, and there's no doubt in my mind that the easy availability of cheap and extremely high calorie food is probably the biggest single cause.

So what do you do? We can yell about personal responsibility, but nothing NOTHING will change. No I take that back - things will continue to change for the worse. I'm not sure if suing these fast food companies is the way to go, but I'm not sure what else can be done. No one is ever going to pass legislation outlawing high-calorie food or mandating fruits, veggies, and exercise. Companies sure aren't going to take personal responsibility and stop selling the crap. People who shout about personal responsibility always seem to ignore the personal responsibility of the people who run the corporations. Yeah, it's legal, but is it really responsible to sell it and market it to kids the way they do?
post #28 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>

Your definition of social responsibility is so broad as to be meaningless. The restaurants supply food, and jobs. They do so at a reasonable price and pay reasonable wages considering the nature of the work.

Exactly how much more would you expect them to do?

As for your claim of locked down information that needs freeing. For years I have seen large posters in lots of McDonalds Restaurants that display the nutritional information for all the items they sell. I also know that the information is also available on request.

Additionally they do offer healthy food, however people simply choose not to buy it.

There is a big difference between being responsible and a nanny-state. McDonalds does offer choices.

American's are simply reaping the benefits of what we sow. If you are going to sue McDonalds for contributing to obesity. You had better sue ISP's, software developers, and computer hardware makers because the largest crowd of fat people on the planet is likely computer users.

Likewise you had better sue television makers, cable and satellite services, and all entertainment companies for inexpensively providing all the entertainment that keeps so many glued to their couches for 5+ hours a day (On average) instead of exercising.

Though I am sure the trial lawyers will get around to these folks eventually.

Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not defining social responsibility. I'm being realistic and concillatory in saying that there's a line that shouldn't be crossed and that I don't know where it is. I do know that Fat Food companies can do MORE. The "large posters" that you speak of are often confusingly laid out in small print and in obscure locations in the fast food place. A lot of the times, the nutrition information is ONLY available through request. They wouldn't even have any on premises sometimes. That's just unacceptable. We need to make this information ubiquitous. Just how many grams of fat are in a BigMac? Put it on the package. Everywhere- even to the point of Surgeon General type warnings. The fact is that status quo is unacceptable. It costs us so much to put up with obesity related illnesses that I don;t see how anyone could not support holding Big Fat more accountable.
post #29 of 269
It's one thing for an individual restaurant to sell food. But Nation and Internation companies that have set menus (like the Big Mac) should probably be federally regulated to include one of those information stickers you now see on all food. the ones that show how much stuff is inside and a percentage of daily allowance for a 2000 Calorie diet.

That seems like a logical step. they already know the food content since they're printing up info. Whatever companies are required by law to do that should also have to have those stickers on the packages.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #30 of 269
I'm personally thinking about suing all the fast food restaurants I've eaten at before. I mean, I'm always at Taco Bell or Burger King, yet I'm still just a skinny azz motha****a.
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
post #31 of 269
Scott:

[quote]<strong>The court system is not the proper place to bring about social change in the US. Learn that now and never forget it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Classic. Simply classic. That gets an early nod for Post Of The Year 2003, in my opinion.

bunge:

[quote]<strong>But to me it's sick and wrong that the corporations target kids well before they're old enough to understand what healthy food really is.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree with you 110%

It is disgusting how, what is essentially a mild and slow-acting poison, is so perfectly advertised to a nation of fattening children like some weird corporate version of Hansel & Gretel.

"PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!"
We expect informed nutritional judgements from a 6-year-old kid getting hit with McD's commercials since he could process sounds and visuals? No language skills needed, they see the bright colors on TV and recognize those golden arches on the road.

"THE PARENTS SHOULD BE MORE RESPONSIBLE! THEY BUY THE STUFF!"
Well that's dandy, they should be. What that has to do with liability on McDonald's' part I don't know...

People who push such amazingly unhealthy and (in the long run) deadly products probably shouldn't be allowed to run such disturbingly effective advertising to children.

And if you think fatty foods aren't addictive you are very sorely mistaken.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #32 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>

I'm not defining social responsibility. I'm being realistic and concillatory in saying that there's a line that shouldn't be crossed and that I don't know where it is. I do know that Fat Food companies can do MORE. The "large posters" that you speak of are often confusingly laid out in small print and in obscure locations in the fast food place. A lot of the times, the nutrition information is ONLY available through request. They wouldn't even have any on premises sometimes. That's just unacceptable. We need to make this information ubiquitous. Just how many grams of fat are in a BigMac? Put it on the package. Everywhere- even to the point of Surgeon General type warnings. The fact is that status quo is unacceptable. It costs us so much to put up with obesity related illnesses that I don;t see how anyone could not support holding Big Fat more accountable.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have never had trouble finding the nutritional information for McDonalds. Likewise it is doubtful that having the nutritional information would alter the views of the buying public. Smokers when quizzed on the health effects of their smoking actually overestimate the negative health effects. They will for example estimate that it takes 9 years off their life when the average is 7.

Obviously smokers know that smoking is harmful to them. I would guess that if asked to estimate the number of grams of fat and calories in a fastfood meal that most patrons would likely overestimate them as well.

It is really unlikely that this is what is making them decide to buy the food.

McDonalds has been around a lot longer than the rise of obesity which has occured largely in the 90's. I would bet it was more information and internet age related than food.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #33 of 269
It's really very simple. Less exercise and more eating fast food = a nation of Fatty McButterpants clones.

After all, you deserve a break today!
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #34 of 269
We can debate the efficacy of warning labels all day long. I respectfully disagree with you and think that the bottom line should be more effort on the part of Fat Food companies to increase awareness. I think it's a crappy argument to say that since you know it's bad, everyone should know. I want Fat Food companies to show consumers just HOW BAD it really is. And not in some chart that doesn't even affect drive-thru customers or most customorers in general. We owe it our kids for more ubiquity of this information.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
post #35 of 269
People, it's really not that hard:

a) no one is forced to eat fast food...people make that choice, out of convenience, price, taste, etc.

b) anyone who has any sort of sense should be able to figure out that a steady, longtime diet of fried, greasy and high-calorie food is going to result in some weight gain.

You, and you alone, are kinda responsible for that. You don't get to turn around, after 20 years of not eating properly and taking other steps to maintain a healthy body, and sue because you wound up fat.

That's just nonsense and further evidence that people have totally lost their marbles.

Does anyone think ahead anymore? Anyone take some sort of responsibility for the actions they undertake? Does anyone think about being a little smarter and more careful in how they go through life?

Yeah, that's what I thought...

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

I honestly hope that any and every judge who gets one of these cases tosses it out immediately.
post #36 of 269
Put all the labels you like on the food and it doesn't matter. Kids get hooked young when they have no grasp of not only the nutritional information but even their own mortality. They have absolutely no references.

pscates:

[quote]<strong>You, and you alone, are kinda responsible for that. You don't get to turn around, after 20 years of not eating properly and taking other steps to maintain a healthy body, and sue because you wound up fat.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are responsible for your fatty mcfattyness, yes, and McD's is responsible for knowingly pushing very dangerous products onto impressionable and malleable children.

It really is simple.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #37 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Put all the labels you like on the food and it doesn't matter. Kids get hooked young when they have no grasp of not only the nutritional information but even their own mortality. They have absolutely no references.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you are right. I think something like that would benefit adults way more than children. Perhaps a similar measure would be to ban all Fast Food advertising to children. That's really one of the key issues, as Bunge and you have pointed out- The Children.
post #38 of 269
I'm sorry, I don't see it as "pushing".

But even if that's so, maybe people need to exhibit a bit of forethought and self control? Still comes down to choices people make. And in the case of children, perhaps their parents should monitor things a bit closer, making sure their kids aren't eating this crap 24/7. That's kinda part of the job.

Yes you're right...it is quite simple, isn't it?
post #39 of 269
Besides, nearly all of the major fast food chains that I know of offer a "lite" menu these days, with things like salads and chicken-based meals, along with diet sodas (or water, juice and milk).

But again, people stand there and order the Triple Whopper with extra cheese and an extra large chocolate shake when they could just as easily order a side salad, some sort of grilled chicken sandwich (minus the mayo and oil) and a water or diet soda instead, right?

Choices.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
post #40 of 269
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>I'm sorry, I don't see it as "pushing".</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's certainly how the people doing the advertising see it. You know why they have the big purple guy? Or the big clown? To influence kids. Are kids capable of real independent analysis of something as abstract as an invisible substance in a food and how it will relate to their health in 20 years? Absolutely not. Do advertisers know this? You bet your conservative ass.

Now this is a harmless concept to us because we were raised not thinking about it objectively. "Well, of course they advertise to kids, the kids tell the parents to buy the stuff! It's good business!" And it is, it's great business.

But it's very seedy and it's very disturbing.

[quote]<strong>But even if that's so, maybe people need to exhibit a bit of forethought and self control?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Absolutely, still doesn't mean that McD's is absolved of responsibility (not punitive to individuals, but in a general sense).

[quote]<strong>And in the case of children, perhaps their parents should monitor things a bit closer, making sure their kids aren't eating this crap 24/7. That's kinda part of the job.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, how do the actions of the parent relate to McD's advertising practices?

Fatty McFattypants doesn't, in my opinion, deserve punitive damages from McD's. McD's, however, absolutely needs to be held responsible for its irresponsible and dangerous advertising practice.

People all across the country are dying because of obesity and the best you can think of is "well, maybe you shoulda thought of that ahead of time"?

It's a little deeper than that. Just a little bit deeper.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › McDonalds made my childern fat! Not!!!