McDonalds made my childern fat! Not!!! - Page 2  

I'd like strike down the choices argument. It's obvious when you view advertisments and promotions for Fat Food companies that healthy choices are advertised far, far, far less frequently or ubiquitously (if at all) than the regular fatty fare. Why this is important is because ALL advertising directed at children is the regular fatty fare. They lure them with Happy Meals filled with popular toys and establish unhealthy eating patterns from the start. These children don't have a choice.

Sorry, p, McD's only has a <a href="http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/food/nutrition_facts/salads/index.html" target="_blank">salad</a> thing and even that comes with fatty dressing.

3.5 grams of saturated fat in a Chef's Salad? How the hell do you even do that? Saturated fat can only come from animals! (correct me if I'm wrong)

<a href="http://www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/social/index.html" target="_blank">Comedy</a>

Well, McD's is <a href="http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/food/eating_right/index.html" target="_blank">quite concerned</a> with your child's health. Very sage advice from the venerable burger franchise to the children: "So why be shy? Give new foods a try" and "Cut the Sweets 'til After You Eat,"

I must've glossed over the part that says "To stay healthy, avoid McDonald's like the plague." because all I saw was "Try our shake after you eat yet another of our happy meals. Oooh and guess what kids! <a href="http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/whatsnew/happy_meal/index.html" target="_blank">2 toys in every happy meal</a>!"

--

McD's recently cut down on some of the "bad fats" in their fries by a significant margin. Good on them for that.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>

I give up and am gonna have to bail on this thread before groverat and Shawn make me pop a vessel. I just can't believe this. Holy cow.



Let's just babysit everyone, cradle to grave, I guess? That's just how it has to be?

:confused:

Eat fast food = get fat

Exercise some self-control and good sense = probably be okay

Parents can tell their kids "no", Shawn. It's actually part of the job requirement. It's not written anywhere that kids have to be fed fast food (or if they are, that it's always greasy Happy Meals 4-5 times a week). If they are, then that parent perhaps needs to be taught better nutritional practices and habits. They're ultimately responsible (I don't know any 7-year-old driving to Burger King and buying their own lunch).

As for McWhoever's "responsibility to the public", I think they do what they're required. This stuff is posted or is available if you ask for it. If someone wants to know exactly what they're eating, they can find out. I don't think it's in these restaurants prime interest or grand plan to beat people over the head with it.

Again, if you've spent any amount of time on this planet, you should already know what this stuff is about. This isn't some huge shocker that we're all just figuring out, guys.

You tailor your eating habits accordingly. Honestly, I LOVE Wendy's hamburgers. They're delicious. But I'm not going to eat them 5 days a week. I figure once, maybe twice, a month is an acceptable "treat". Makes me look forward to something, makes me enjoy it that much more.

I go up to the counter, place my order, pay my money KNOWING what I'm eating and that "okay, it's been awhile and I've been pretty good about things...this is cool...isn't gonna kill me...". I don't expect the 17-year-old behind the counter to rattle off a bunch of nutritional info, in case I want to change my mind.



That's NOT what I'm there for.

'rat, you're MAKING this "much deeper than that" and it really isn't hanging together. I'm fully aware of how deep things are or aren't. And this ain't.

And you should lose the overstating, smarty-pants tone, 'rat. It's not becoming and it's insulting. You're better than that. I NEVER said McWhoever is some great pillar of nutritional excellence, so getting all wisenheimer with their silly nutritional info isn't convincing me of anything (or "telling me how it is"). I KNOW what places like that are about.

THAT'S why I don't eat there four damn days a week.

See? It all starts to come together if you just let it...

[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>




The court system is a very effective way to bring about social change, in fact it is the very system that has established social development/change throughout any legal system....

Where can one find the submissions made by the plaintiff? Id be interested in reading them.. See what the actual arguments were!

23,000 votes at CNN Money.com.
95% in favor of the ruling, 5% opposed to it.
That kind of audience overwhelmingly supports the decision. Here's the <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/index.htm" target="_blank">link</a>. It seems that the arguments made against McDonalds were not fully fleshed out.

I'm trying to find the case on Lexis/Nexis but I don't know the parties' names.

I feel this is pertinent to my point:

[quote]"The law of warnings is not designed for the best and brightest of us," Banzhaf says. It is aimed at helping people who need to be told not to stand on the top step of a ladder or not to use a hair dryer in the bathtub, he says.

For example, McDonald's warns parents not to give the toys in its kid's meals to children younger than three years of age, Banzhaf says. If parents need to be cautioned about an obvious threat such as a choking hazard, then why not issue a warning about the danger of overeating the food, he says.

Moreover, if McDonald's is already producing brochures with fat, calories and other data, why not make that information clear and conspicuous, Banzhaf asks. Maybe the disclosures should be right on the menu, he says.

To be sure, fast-food companies know that obesity is a significant problem, yet they promote high-fat foods with little disclosure, he says.

<hr></blockquote>

-December 9th, 2002 edition of the National Law Journal

What I am reading is that Samuel Hirsch's case just wasn't very good. That's not to say there isn't one against Big Fat.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>

[quote] I feel this is pertinent to my point:
"The law of warnings is not designed for the best and brightest of us," Banzhaf says. It is aimed at helping people who need to be told not to stand on the top step of a ladder or not to use a hair dryer in the bathtub, he says. <hr></blockquote>

The "law of warnings" ?
Holy cow (note McDonald's pun), where does it end ? (For that matter, where the hell did it begin... and how the fsck did we end up HERE ?)

I prefer to believe in the "Law of Natural Selection":
If you are stupid enough to use a hair dryer in the bathtub, then the human race's future is brighter without you in the gene pool.

If being smart enough to NOT need a warning to prevent you from frying your ass by trying to dry your hair in the bathtub, is sufficient to qualify you as "the best and the brightest of us", then the human race (or at least American society) is truly doomed, DOOMED, DOOMED, even moreso than a 970-less Apple..... DOOMED, I tell ya !!!

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>

I don't feel that quote is entirely accurate. The law of warnings is more directed towards people of average intelligence. But the reasoning still stands.

[quote]Â* Â*Â* Â* Â*Â* Â* Â* Â*Â*
I feel this is pertinent to my point:
<hr></blockquote>Â*

but...

[quote]Â* Â*Â* Â* Â*Â* Â* Â* Â*Â*
I don't feel that quote is entirely accurate.
<hr></blockquote>Â* Â*Â* Â* Â*Â* Â* Â* Â*Â*

Let us know when you've made up your mind!
Or shall we just infer that you don't feel that your point is entirely accurate ? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />


[quote]
The law of warnings is more directed towards people of average intelligence.
<hr></blockquote>

I reiterate: if frying your ass in the bathtub by using a hairdryer qualifies you as an American of "average intelligence", then our society is indeed doomed.

All you (and/or Banzhaf) are doing here is lowering the bar for what is considered average intelligence and basic competence. This is one of the biggest areas where America has become sadly pathetic in our modern society, IMNSHO.

Not too different from what the vast majority of standardized testing in public schools seeks to do - to lower the acceptable standards... and therefore lower the shock to parents and taxpayers when it becomes clear that "Johnny Can't Read".....

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>

I can quote selectively too. Though I'm not here to play word games with you. We could face off in Yahoo! Literati for that purpose.

[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>Eat fast food = get fat
Exercise some self-control and good sense = probably be okay
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Inject heroin = drug addiction
exercise some self-control = probably be okay

And of course the giant multinational heroin corporations can include a shitty little toy with their "happy dime bag", blanket kids TV with primary coloured advertising, sponsor the special olympics and even start supplying schoolkids from school sponored dealers.

After all, the parents will "just say no" to their kids, even when they are hooked themselves.

[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>I feel this is pertinent to my point:



-December 9th, 2002 edition of the National Law Journal

What I am reading is that Samuel Hirsch's case just wasn't very good. That's not to say there isn't one against Big Fat.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

You know...the children might even choke on the food if they shovel it into their mouth to quickly.

In addition to the nutritional info the food should probably have a choking warning as well.

I mean according to the law of warning we can't assume everyone who puts food into their mouth is smart enough to chew it enough times to insure they don't choke on it when they swallow. Of course their children have even less experience so they might choke even more from eating food.

And of course they responsibly put warning labels on their toys and offer alternative toys which means... their admitting culpability so we can sue them out of existance.

What if they hadn't put warning labels on the toys and offered alternatives? We would sue them out of existance...

Yep... I can see how that helps your argument Shawn.

Nick

[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>

Inject heroin = drug addiction
exercise some self-control = probably be okay

And of course the giant multinational heroin corporations can include a shitty little toy with their "happy dime bag", blanket kids TV with primary coloured advertising, sponsor the special olympics and even start supplying schoolkids from school sponored dealers.

After all, the parents will "just say no" to their kids, even when they are hooked themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You always post strawmen arguments... you really should read more about what they are and stop doing it.

Illegal drugs does not equal food.

Clear on that? Good? Got it?

If anything you are showing exactly why drugs should never be made legal.

Nick

[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>I'd like strike down the choices argument. It's obvious when you view advertisments and promotions for Fat Food companies that healthy choices are advertised far, far, far less frequently or ubiquitously (if at all) than the regular fatty fare. Why this is important is because ALL advertising directed at children is the regular fatty fare. They lure them with Happy Meals filled with popular toys and establish unhealthy eating patterns from the start. These children don't have a choice.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Duh... newflash.... hamburger restaurants primarily advertise.... hamburgers....

Next up on the news...Las Vegas primariy advertises...gambling...

Shawn have you ever looked into the benefits of exercise? Your level of caloric intake in determined by how much muscle mass you have. Some of these weight training guys have to actually drink high calorie shakes to give them enough calories to support their muscles. They need 3500-4000 calories a day.

The reason people get fat more easily is a lack of muscle mass. The lack of muscle mass comes from lack of exercise.

If you look at most of the true health programs, they all recommend weight training because each pound of muscle burns 60 calories even when at rest. Where as a pound of fat burns 6 calories.

Why don't you see if the rise in obesity has anything to do with more idleness before you go blaming the food. Again the rise is more recent than the existance of McDonalds. I would bet it is clearly linked to the rise of cable and satellite TV, Gameboys, improved game consoles, and the Internet.

Nick

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>I don't feel that quote is entirely accurate. The law of warnings is more directed towards people of average intelligence. But the reasoning still stands.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes well the reasoning is still insulting because they make it sould like an average intelligence must be about 70 on the IQ scale.

Nick

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I seem to be doing okayl. I eat there about every two months. But then again I'm not some fat ass sad sacl mother****er that wants to blame everything on someone else and get $millions 'cause I can't stop shoving food in my mouth.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

YOU CAN STOP EATING IT IF YOU WANT TO! What "law" did McD' "overstep"?

Get real people.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

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....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe I'll search google but in this area there's too much FUD on the net to get good info.

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>

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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've "heard" people say that but I've never read a good report on it. Hollywood fiction is not proof. I mean, come on. Russel Crowe movie?

Based on a real life court case with transcripts that you can find if so inclined, and also outlined at your nearest legal library/gov't docs holdings etc...

Paul:

When have I, anywhere in this thread, said that McDs was legally or punitively responsible for anyone's obesity. Because you keep arguing against me as if I'm saying that.

Can you even comment on my assertions about their business practices? Or does that somehow tie into "personal responsibility" as well?

If that's your line of thought you would be fine with Camel advertising on school lockers, right? Hell, they don't shove 'em in your mouth!

It makes no sense. The "personal responsibility" argument is such a popular weapon but when one suggests "corporate responsibility" all of the sudden it's a communist plot.
These corporations know that their advertising is powerfully effective with youth. They know the products they advertise are very unhealthy and a key part of a major problem facing the nation. This, to you, means nothing?

--

Re: exercise.

I think exercise is the #1 most important thing and biggest potential solution. Not fat-burning pills. Exercise.

Living in the slothful culture that we are readily available fatty foods are very dangerous. It's not an either/or issue; either people get exercising OR McDs (as an example of fast food) improving the health of their food. It's AND.

People need to show more responsibility for their own health (while teaching their children good values) AND McDs needs to change its advertising practices.

--

And as far as me using a tone you don't like, glass houses.

[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
You always post strawmen arguments... you really should read more about what they are and stop doing it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks for the debating tip.

I was highlighting the rather glib statement that as long as 'sensible people' aren't affected then there is no problem.

I thought I'd do that by bringing in something that supporters of "common sense" opinions like to regulate by law and bring up the relentless focus on children that is part of the McDonalds modus operandi.

You call it a straw man, I'll call it adding color. I'm happy to give the posters in this forum enough credit to not be confused and actually think about what's being said.

And if they are confused? What the hell am I supposed to do, "babysit everyone, cradle to grave"?

[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>

Illegal drugs does not equal food.</strong><hr></blockquote>

McDonald's does not equal food, but they advertise it as such. There should probably be a minimum nutritional content to = food, and the bar should be far higher than McD's.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
The "personal responsibility" argument is such a popular weapon but when one suggests "corporate responsibility" all of the sudden it's a communist plot. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Scott, this is the point. Corporations are shown no responsibility. That's just wrong. If you peddle death, your company should be responsible.

You know it, I know it, we all know it, it's just some like the cash.

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Based on a real life court case with transcripts that you can find if so inclined, and also outlined at your nearest legal library/gov't docs holdings etc...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Who vs. What?

I found this page.

No tar and nicotine listed as additives.

<a href="http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/druginfo/additives.html" target="_blank">http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/druginfo/additives.html</a>

Still waiting for proof. If you have some please post.

Tar and Nicotine are not additives, they are natural occurances from smoking tobacco leaves. Whether or not BT companies added something to enhance these, I don't know.

Anyone seen that political cartoon where a fat American and someone from Somalia are both thinking the same thing, in a thought bouble: "I'm worried about my weight..."

Makes me want to barf in my mouth and swallow it it's poignant.

This thread is great. So great it needs its own poll. So I gave it one.

Vote <a href="http://www.misterpoll.com/2983275707.html" target="_blank">here</a>

And notice the mandatory AI spin

ThinkingDifferent: Please include the link in your first post and adjust the thread title if you want. To my experience very few actually read post #70...

[quote]Originally posted by Aquatic:
<strong>Anyone seen that political cartoon where a fat American and someone from Somalia are both thinking the same thing, in a thought bouble: "I'm worried about my weight..."

Makes me want to barf in my mouth and swallow it it's poignant. </strong><hr></blockquote>
:eek: got a link?

Scott, I'm tempted to say you're such a dick sometimes, but I think you may have a legit point in that nobody in the thread really mentioned the specifics before hand.

Jeffery Wigand (a chemist) was an exectutive of Brown and Williamson Tabacco. I don't remember which state they came out of, but I'm sure you can look it up because the legal trail was huge. Wigand blew the whistle on the specific tailoring of a nicotine delivery science at work throughout big tabacco to "60 Minutes" producer Lowell Bergman. If you do nothing else you can look up an old tape of that 60 minutes piece at a public library. From there we have congressional hearings, lawsuits, and not one way either, Brown and Williamson also tried to sue Wigand. There's even a Vanity fair article documenting the whole thing which eventually became the Crowe movie. I think the article was called "The Man who knew too much." I don't remember the writer's name but it was a woman, if that helps.

Whaddya know? Wigand has a <a href="http://www.jeffreywigand.com" target="_blank">WEBSITE</a> too. I haven't looked through it but I'm positive it will lead you to the cases and testimony chapter and verse.

You must be living under rock if you think that this a crazed conspiracy phantasy of the alien crop circle kind. This is just the bit I remember, but it was all over news, "talk" and editorial when the film came out, and if you're old enough to remember it was all over the news when the real life events originally took place.

I'm not a lawyer and searching my memory is about as much research as I'm going to do to point to a matter of public record. Look the rest up for yourself.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>

If McDonalds has Dr. Atkins testify, they will win hands down.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>

[quote]BROOK, Ill. (AP) -- McDonald's Corp. announced the first quarterly net loss in its history Thursday, a $343.8 million deficit reflecting an assortment of charges and write-offs aimed at helping it pull out of an unprecedented slump.

While McDonald's had warned of the loss last month, it took an unexpectedly high $810 million in charges for the fourth quarter. That news helped push its stock, which traded above $30 a share as recently as last summer, under $15 for the first time since 1995.


The burger giant said it is closing 719 under-performing restaurants -- primarily in the United States and Japan -- including 202 which were shuttered in the fourth quarter. But it is not giving up on expansion, disclosing plans to open another 850 traditional McDonald's restaurants, 380 of its smaller ``satellite'' facilities and 150 of its other brand restaurants in 2003.

The whopping total of charges for the quarter included $267 million for restructuring items, $359 for restaurant closings and the reduced value of those assets and $184 million on technology write-offs.

...

As of Dec. 31, McDonald's operated 31,108 restaurants in 119 countries, including 13,491 in the United States, 6,070 in Europe and 3,891 in Japan. Of that total, 1,083 involve its partner brands: Boston Market, Chipotle, Donatos, Fazoli's and Aroma Cafe. <hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Groverat,

"irresponsible and dangerous advertising practice?" My God, you've entered the twilight zone to be with the other left wingers. My wife, kids, and I see their advertising every day and yet we never eat at McD's. It's up to the parents to watch what their kids eat as well as teach them what to eat. My two sons are not fat and they know what food is good and bad for them. They are 12 and 9.

Any kid who gets fat eating at McD's or eats too much candy or drinks too much soda is a kid who has shitty parents.

[quote]Originally posted by sc_markt:
<strong>My wife, kids, and I see their advertising every day and yet we never eat at McD's.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Explain to me how this logic works:
"My family does not eat McDonald's so McDonald's does not have bad advertising practices."

I don't smoke but I can see how Joe Camel can be a bad thing for kids. Hmm, maybe the world doesn't revolve around you and your family?

[quote]<strong>Any kid who gets fat eating at McD's or eats too much candy or drinks too much soda is a kid who has shitty parents.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Have you been reading along? If not I'd suggest you try it.

Wow- what a debate.

Personally, I kind of like McD's: once a year. That's what I allow myself. A one year trip for an artery clogging Big Mac with fries and a coke. I see whole families in the McD's close to my office happily ordering, and supersizing. Is it their chioce to eat there? You betcha. There's even the Grand Central Market across the street where they could with a little more time, money and effort dig up something far healthier for them and their kids. But they don't. Now is that because they are stupid? Maybe. Addicted? Doubt it. Maybe it's just that, unlike me, they're not single males with corporate jobs and gym memberships. Maybe being able to feed the whole family for under 10 bucks is a big priority for minimun-wage earners with kids.

Is McDonalds in schools (and even some <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/52967p-49651c.html" target="_blank">hospitals</a>!?!)? Sure. Along with Candy and soda and Pringles and Fritos. These things bring money to schools that are pretty cash-strapped, since none of us want our property taxes raised.

Is McDonalds inherently evil for selling 49 cent cheeseburgers? I don't think so. Do they market to kids? Oh yeah, but so does toaster strudel, which has even less value as food. Do parents need to start to say "no" to little porky and start feeding the kids carrot and celery? You bet- even the ones who make minimum wage. But until we get get money into the schools so that they can get the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/02/ma_207_01.html" target="_blank">crap food out of the cafeteria</a>), and start getting some nutrition classes in, we are going to have fat kids.

But no, I don't think for the most part that there is merit in suing them for making you fat. If you are over 18 and not in a coma, you choose what you put in your body.

[quote]Originally posted by tmp:
<strong>
Is McDonalds in schools (and even some <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/52967p-49651c.html" target="_blank">hospitals</a>!?!)? Sure. Along with Candy and soda and Pringles and Fritos. These things bring money to schools that are pretty cash-strapped, since none of us want our property taxes raised.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

You want to bring up the economic argument? Do you know much taxpayers spend on obesity-related illnesses? The number has to be in the BILLIONS of dollars per year. And if schools are doing so poorly that they need to encourage the fattening of America, something needs to be done on some level of government to get more money to those schools.

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Scott, I'm tempted to say you're such a dick sometimes, but I think you may have a legit point in that nobody in the thread really mentioned the specifics before hand. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Why? Becuase I insist that people back up their claims?

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>...

Whaddya know? Wigand has a <a href="http://www.jeffreywigand.com" target="_blank">WEBSITE</a> too. I haven't looked through it but I'm positive it will lead you to the cases and testimony chapter and verse.

You must be living under rock if you think that this a crazed conspiracy phantasy of the alien crop circle kind. This is just the bit I remember, but it was all over news, "talk" and editorial when the film came out, and if you're old enough to remember it was all over the news when the real life events originally took place.

I'm not a lawyer and searching my memory is about as much research as I'm going to do to point to a matter of public record. Look the rest up for yourself.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Interesting. Where does it say they added nicotine and tar? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>

Why? Because you try and derail a point with semantics.

<a href="http://www.quitsmokinguk.com/what's_in_a_cigarette.htm" target="_blank">Try</a> Google. It's amazing....