McDonalds made my childern fat! Not!!!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
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>
«13456714

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 268
    Thank god, didnt these people ever hear of salad, protein and excersize?
  • Reply 2 of 268
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    "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>
  • Reply 3 of 268
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,397member
    [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.
  • Reply 4 of 268
    trevormtrevorm Posts: 841member
    Didnt think it would get anywhere thank god!

    To think that the ilk associated with this case would get anywhere.
  • Reply 5 of 268
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [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?
  • Reply 6 of 268
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 268
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    [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).
  • Reply 8 of 268
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [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>
  • Reply 9 of 268
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    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.
  • Reply 10 of 268
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    [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.
  • Reply 11 of 268
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [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.
  • Reply 12 of 268
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [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....
  • Reply 13 of 268
    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.
  • Reply 14 of 268
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [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.
  • Reply 15 of 268
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [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.
  • Reply 16 of 268
    [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>
  • Reply 16 of 268
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [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?
  • Reply 18 of 268
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    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.
  • Reply 19 of 268
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [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.
  • Reply 20 of 268
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.