Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Blaming McDonald's for Making People Fat

[Tsiyu]

NEW YORK (AP) - An appeals court Tuesday revived part of a class-action lawsuit blaming McDonald's for making people fat, reinstating claims pertaining to deceptive advertising.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge erred when he dismissed parts of the lawsuit brought on behalf of two New York children.

U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet dismissed the lawsuit in 2003 because he said it failed to link the children's alleged health problems directly to McDonald's products.

But the appeals judges said New York's general business law requires a plaintiff to show only that deceptive advertising was misleading and that the plaintiff was injured as a result. The panel upheld other parts of the dismissal.

In a statement, Oak Brook, Ill.-based McDonald's Corp. said "common sense tells you this particular case makes no sense," adding the ruling "simply delays the inevitable conclusion that this case is without merit."

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB7TWT0F4E.html

[TheFarseer]

1. This is so exasperating that a judge would even

give audience to this farce. Here's a deal: McDonalds is sentenced to buy them a gym membership. If the plantiffs can finish the Boston marathon next year - with no walking, then McDonalds buys them a lifetime supply of fruits and vegetables. If they can't finish, then they pay back the price of the gym membership. Personally, I would have hoped there weren't any judges in America that have brain cells to waste on this nosense.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Good God. Anyone check on these people's party affiliation?

[FM Arouet666]

2. Personal responsibility or cooperate greed?

I think Americans have lost personal responsibility, seems that every ill is caused by someone else. Too fat, blame McDonalds, lung cancer, the tobacco industry did it to me. To some extent, this is true. Lawyers have fostered this environment, and greed is certainly part of the equation.

The counter argument is that cooperations work on a philosophy of greed, with negative consequences involving illness or death weighed against profits and liability. A company may continue to provide a product, despite it being harmful, if the end profit out weighs the cost of liability.

However, the McDonalds case is more of a grey area. The product is not necessarily dangerous, if taken with moderation. Is Crisco a poison to be banned from human consumption? It is a poison if taken in large quantity, but people do not generally consume large amounts or Crisco. Who is responsible for the people that consume large amounts of fast food and bear the ill effects of a poor diet?

Personal responsibility is an issue, but what about the poor, uneducated person which has no idea that long term consumption can have untoward health effects? Does McDonalds bear the majority of the responsibility because it still uses trans fatty acids, provides foods with an enormous caloric quantity, high in sodium, and low in nutritional quality?

Certainly a complex issue with consequences. To pass judgment against McDonalds would not only affect fast food chains, but other industries as well. Is the Jack Daniels company at fault for providing a product to the alcoholic? What about other high caloric food products?

Just thinking out load, wish I had an answer.

[drhilarius]

3. I agree with you somewhat...

The tobacco companies SHOULD be held accountable for basically lying to the public about the health risks associated with cigarettes. Furthermore, it's known that they have worked over decades to create a product that is cripplingly addictive (I'm currently on my 6th attempt to quit).

This McDonald's case, OTOH, is ridiculous. I don't think there's a person in this world who thinks McDonald's is good for you. If you eat McDonald's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and then become obese...well, what the hell did you expect. The plaintiffs,iirc, are saying that McDonald's, like tobacco companies, make their product addictive, an argument I find specious. Again, to give anecdotal support, I find quiting smokes difficult, but i gave up big macs the minute i saw "Supersize me".

I agree, however, that there needs to be accountability. I would say I'm 50% responsible for my addiction. If I don't quit, knowing full well the dangers of smoking, then I'm %90 responsible for any health problems I face. This McDonald's thing is ridiculous. Go to Subway, eat a salad.

[FM Arouet666]

5. I still don't know

My initial instinct was to say that the lawsuit is ridiculous. You eat fatty food all day, you get fat, your responsibility.

However, if you have no education, live in poverty, a trip to McDonalds may seem special. The ignorance in this population segment is amazing. Who is their advocate? The lawyer looking for the big payoff from a class action suit or the crusading litigator seeking to protect the innocent? Who is the victim, the uneducated obese diabetic or the restaurant which is providing tasty hamburgers?

I am playing devils advocate, and agree with you. Comparing the McDonalds case to that of the tobacco companies fails on many levels, the least of which is the fact that a Big Mac is not an addictive substance.

Of course, my counter argument has lead to all sorts of silly warning labels, to warn the ignorant masses of what is blatantly obvious to the rest of society.

Warning: eating this Big Mac might make you fat. Being fat can lead to a variety of serious health effects.

There has to be a better way.........

[AliciaKeyedUp]

11. Who to blame

Businesses can't be blamed if people are stupid and overeat.

[Delphinus]

7. You said it, FM Arouet666.

Americans have lost personal responsibility.

McDonalds didn't make people fat - unhealthy eating choices made people fat. Until we wake up and start taking responsibility for the choices we make, we're doomed.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Don't blame this on the lawyers. Blame it on our court system.

Lawyers are ethically obligated to give the best representation they can in court. The question is, why did the judges allow these cases to proceed?

I can understand the case where the person who was scalded with hot water because it could have caused an accident while driving. I can even agree with the smoking lawsuits because nicotine is addictive and the smoking industry not only advertised heavily, but also upped the nicotine in their cigarettes. But the McDonalds burger made me fat defense is just, well, lame.

[AP]

4. I specifically remembering being under the impression that eating

a Big Mac and fries was healthy when I was little.

What I've learned about how they make that food is stunning.

The french fries are made to be fast and cheap, and, according to a New Yorker article a few years ago, it seems that McDonalds knows that the manufacturing techniques result in a much less safe product.

Also, McDonalds is in a perpetual fight to prevent the FDC from enacting regulations that would make them reveal more information about what's in their products.

I think people really don't understand how bad that food is for them.

[quispquake]

6. It's the marketing that's the problem...

Marketing is making the food FUN, so kids want to eat there more...They absolutely need to put the nutritional information on the packaging...McD's does this for their salads, but NOT for the burgers? And yes, maybe everyone knows that the food isn't good for you, but if they saw the actual fat numbers on the packaging, more people would be aware.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

12. Food IS fun

We are lucky to have incredible food choices and options.

[One_Life_To_Give]

9. And some wonder why lawyers are so disliked n/t

[salin]

13. question per the claim of 'deceptive advertising'

while on the surface the suit sounds silly... I would have to see/read what they are claiming per the deceptive advertising claim (upon which the suit seems to hinge.)

Does anyone know the details of what is being claimed per the "deceptive advertising"? Is the claim one of ommission (e.g., McDonalds didn't tell outright that their products/food was potentially harmful) - which I would find rather specious (then count me in the frivolous lawsuit category of how I view the case). Or is the claim more direct (e.g., did McDonalds claim the opposite - did they do an ad campaign that claimed the food was healthy, or part of a healthy diet, etc.) - depending on the advertising (was it fraudulent - or intentionally false/misleading)... I might view the case differently. However, I have no idea what the claims on this point involve... anyone know?