Should McDonald's Be Sued For Their Product?

[Ravenseye]

I just got into an argument/discussion with a friend of mine. He lives in Germany and we were talking about various things with the state of America. The conversation turned to McDonald's. Let me breifly lay out both sides.

His belief was that McDonald's has purposely engineered their food to be 'addictive' by increasing sugars and fats etc. They have marketed to children with the goal of getting people to eat there as much as posisble, if not every day. He says that if a child gets diabetees because of their eating at McDonald's every day that McDonald's is responsible and should pay for it.

My belief, which he called highly conservative, was one that these people shouldn't be able to get money from McDonald's. I said that firstly people are aware that the product is bad for you, that they post their nutrtion information up, and if someone chooses to eat at McDonald's every day they need to take personal responsiblity for it. I see it as no different than a person just buying Stouffer's dinners and only eating them, then sueing Stouffers. An extreme example would be someone sueing a car manufacturer when someone hits them with a car made by that manufacturer. Sueing gun companies for guns used in crimes, etc. Why should a company be responsible for someone using their product in an irresponsible way? This could hold true for anything from a gun, car, or a big-mac to a knife, beer bottle, or pillowcase.

My belief is that the best way to solve the problem is better education of children and people into healthier habits rather than punishing a company for a customer's irresponsible use of their product.

Am I a Neo-Con and don't even know it? What's wrong with my argument? What's wrong with his?

[soleft]

1. Should you be able to sue Heinenkein if you're an alcoholic?

[Ravenseye]

23. That was one of my responses

Can an alchohol company be held responsible for a drunk driver?

His response is that if the alchohol company was marketing to children and purposely making it's product more addictive without telling anyone...then they should.

I'm not convinced that McDonald's has done this (well they market to children, but I'm not convinced they're evil)

[cheezus]

46. that depends, were they negligent?

Did they represent their product as healthy? Did they fail to disclose that it contains an addictive ingredient? Was it marketed to you from the age of 4 by a clown?

And did they do it all knowingly?

If so, you'd probably have a case.

[Ravenseye]

56. But

Did they represent their product as healthy? I don't know. I don't recall them ever saying it was health food. They've had their nutrition information up on the wall for years.

Did they fail to disclose an addictive ingredient? Again they've posted what was in the food for years. They don't put in anything that hundreds of other companies don't.

Was it marketed to 4 year olds? Yeah, but 4 year olds don't spend money, their parents do. People don't go out and buy their kid every single megazoidrobot action figure (well some do) just because their kid says 'I want it"

[KurtNYC]

65. And did their commercials show Olympic athletes

and Shaquille O'Neil eating the product, implying that athletes eat at Mickey Ds on a regular basis and without ill-effects?

They should be sued for their deceptive marketing if anything.

[Egalitariat]

2. If a child gets diabetes from eating too much McDonald's

It's his parents fault.

Also, guns don't kill people, bullets do. If you sue anyone, it should be the ammunition manufacturers.

[txaslftist]

111. Only if the ammo didn't work.

A gun ain't too complicated a thing. We all know what it does. If it explodes 'cause it's not made right, sue the manufacturer. If the manufacturer says a certain caliber round won't penetrate 1" pine and it does, sue them for false statement.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

3. You should see supersize me.

I think you are just for individual responsibility, rather then corporate malfeasance.

I understand where you are coming from though.

[Ravenseye]

24. Yeah

Thing is I know the food is bad. I know that they've added stuff to make it cheaper, which has also made it more bad.

I just don't see how it's their responsibilty to pay off people who are dumb. It's not like they're peddling heroin to kids and calling it candy.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

47. Well thats why i recommend seeing supersize me

on the one hand, spokes people for McD's claim it is suitable for every meal of the day.

However, in the answer to the complaint that was filed against them for making 2 young girls fat (the first one ever filed) McD's Lawyers claimed that everyone knew their food was bad, so you cant blame them for the harm. They also go on to say that the only way you could even prove the claim of "bad food," is if you ate McD's ever day for 3 meals for a month. And thats what happens in supersize me.

its an eyeopener at the least.

[Ravenseye]

57. I see a distinction though

They said that it's suitable for any meal of the day, not EVERY meal EVERY day. They never claimed you could eat it every single time.

Slim fast and all those other companies have meal replacement shakes which are suitable for a meal, but if you only had their shakes you'd probably die.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

73. very true

I'm not disagreeing with you. Far from that-- I am in a place where i see fault on both sides of the coin, some going to McD's, but most going to the consumer themselves.

I do though see fault in the way McD's advertises, publishes their health information, and the general sneakiness of pushing chemically filled food as a healthy meal.

The movie will at least make you think, it did for me.

[cidliz2004]

4. No, I don't think that you are a Neo Con

If taking responsibility for your personal freedoms makes you a Neo Con, then I must be one to.

This, to me is a no-brainer, Nobody MAKES you eat at McDonalds, Nobody says that eating at McDonalds is a healthy choice, The nutrional info in avail., if you are curious, so NO - free choice carries a responsibility with it. The German person is just misguided. People are way too "sue crazy" now a days. I say take responsibility for your choices and live - - - or die with them!

[K-W]

11. Actually.

The people suing and arent Germans who misunderstand our legal system, and they have evidence that somebody did misrepresent the content of the food. At least in the legitimate lawsuits that ive read about, that has been the case.

[rawtribe]

5. Rent the movie

Super Size Me

I think McDonald's should come with a warning label. Like they do with cigarettes.

[TO Kid]

101. Yet another "duh" label?

Let's be realistic- everyone knows that a lifestyle consisting entirely of fast food and no exercise is not a good thing. Anyone too stupid to understand that deserves a Darwin Award.

[trotsky]

6. I am a little torn, too.

But part of me wants to compare fast food to smoking - especially if McD's and other places are purposely trying to make their food more addictive. Both addictive, both lead to health problems. We held big tobacco reponsible, why not McD's?

[K-W]

9. That isnt why you can sue cigarette companies either.

It has NOTHING to do with addiction.

Its about lying and manipulation. Selling a bad product is not the legal issue, decieving people about the dangers is.

[pnutchuck]

20. Again, in the doc "Super Size Me"

he shows the intentional manipulation of children, through advertisements, toys, playgrounds, cartoons, and so forth. The entire set-up is geared towards children and working class parents. As far as nutritional information being available, no, it's not readily available at the restaurants. On the internet it is, but studies show that only about 20% of US households have the internet.

After the doc premiered, McD's announced that they were discontinuing the Super Size option. If that's not an admition of knowingly putting harmful products on the menu, tell me what would be. They, like the tobacco industry, got called on their little "I had not idea it could hurt you" mantra.

I'm not saying that I think that law suits should necessarily be allowed. Hell, I'm originally from a tiny town Texas and we never had a McD's there and almost everybody in my family should have a brand on their backside. Eating correctly is one of the most important things we can do to maintain healthy bodies and live fuller lives. However, our own government has these fast food, junk food, cola company lobbyists lining their pockets so that we can't have really health. Why, imagine what proper education and diets for our masses would do to our health (sick) care system.

[Ravenseye]

26. I agree

I think that they are obviously marketing to children and the working class. Those are the people who eat there, so they market to them more heavily. Of course they want lifetime customers. Nothing that they do seems like bad business.

It just seems to me like you can take any product and use it irresponsibly and outside of moderation and it's a problem.

[leftynyc]

34. I believe the difference there is I never

saw the execs from McDonalds denying the problems with that kind of food. The tobacco companies did. With that said, I don't think anyone who was born after 1968 (the year the warnings started on the packs - I think) should be able to sue the tobacco companies. People have to take responsibility for their own actions and not blame someone else (you know, like the chimp does).

[ProfessorGAC]

70. How Do They Make It Addictive?

I've never heard that before. You're the 2nd person on this thread who's said that, and i honestly have never heard that. And i've seen Supersize Me.

Are we talking about a psychohabitual addiction or a real physiological addiction? What the heck do they put in the food to make the latter?

This is sort of shock to hear.
The Professor

[pnutchuck]

86. Sugar is addictive, refined carbohydrates and starches, such as bread and

potatoes, coke, yogurt, ice cream, sugar, etc are essentially sugars. It increases insulin, which increases energy, followed by the crash, then the process starts all over again. Eventually, the insulin receptors become "desensitized" (for lack of wanting to get incredibly technical) and more sugar is needed for the same response. Eventually, insulin becomes dependent on external sugar for it's release and cravings for sugar, chocolate, coke, and other refined sugars take over. If this goes on too long, then diabetes is not far away.

By increasing the size of the cokes, for children and adults, they are almost guaranteeing addicts. And I'm not talking about cokes about as large as 2 or 3 cans of coke, these Super Size things are as large 1 gallon of coke.

I know it sounds like I'm pro law suit, but I'm not. I'm for public awareness starting in our schools, and moving to these political lobbyists that are preventing our public schools from offering good health education and practice. Finally, I would like to limit the age at which advertisers could target. I just think anything under 12 is criminal.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JHB]

7. What's wrong with his is...

...it inflates the deinition of "addicted", and ignores personal responsibility to too great a degree.

[K-W]

8. Nobody is suing them for thier food.

They are suing them for misleading people about thier food.

The action is not serving fatty food, its about decieving consumers.

No, you could not sue them for just serving fatty food, that would be legally reidculous.

[Seemann For Congress]

10. For the product, no

Not at all for the product.

However, as "Super Size Me" showed, they hide the nutritional facts of the food and should be made to present it in a much clearer fashion. Heck, maybe it should be on the package like the Surgeon General's Warning on cigarettes.

I went on a 2-month McDonald's fast ofter seeing that film. But I slipped late one night and went for some McNuggets. I've been McD-free since New Year's Day now.

Trust me, that film will open your eyes if you haven't seen it yet.

[IrateCitizen]

15. I've had McD's once in the past 3 years...

And that one time was only because there wasn't anything else nearby, and my wife was STARVING during a trip.

I avoid fast food whenever at all possible. I'll take time to eat in a diner or something else quick as an alternative to fast food whenever I can. I think I've eaten fast food once in the past 3 months or so.

Just seeing the expose on the fries at the end of "Super Size Me" was enough to turn me off to fast food forever.

[andyhappy]

12. lets sue butter!

I am pretty sure that heart disease is the number one killer here in america...maybe more die on the highway.

class action lawsuit against butter!

[Boosterman]

32. Sponsored by Parkay ;)

[bunkerbuster1]

13. Your friend is a bit of an idiot, I fear

and I mean that in the nicest possible way, but..."Purposely engineering the food by increasing sugars?" Gimme a break.

Yeah, Mickie D's put a gun to Coca-Cola's head and forced them to formulate their sugar-water drink a certain way.

By all means, let's do expose the dangers of relying on slimy fast-food marketing. Let's get schools to stop serving their garbage. Let's make public policy decisions that get people out of their damn cars, yadda yadda yadda.

The WORST possible way to attack this problem would be to continue to try to sue McD's for the reasons your pal had given. It's doomed to fail, and only gives the whiny reThugs another talking point.

And yes, I have seen "Supersize me," and loved it.

[IrateCitizen]

14. For their product? No. For their advertising? Yes.

McDonald's markets DIRECTLY to kids as young as 2. Their advertising goal is to create "lifetime customers".

While I already despise the advertising industry for the methods they use for adults, I find it REPREHENSIBLE the way they market toward young children. Where children used to be a treasure to us, now they are seen as just another demographic to be commoditized and exploited.

I have a nephew who just turned two. The two songs he knows off the top of his head are Old McDonald, and the new McDonald's jingle. Please tell me why in the hell fast food should be allowed to market to a 2-year old. And now, it's not like you can even escape it by limiting your kids to PBS -- McDonald's advertises DURING THE SHOW on Teletubbies.

[DistantWind88]

16. Sue them for advertising???

Well, there goes that freedom of speech thing right out the effing window...

[IrateCitizen]

19. So, you have no problem with deceptive marketing to kids???

Sorry, but that's a big problem for me. Especially when it results in exploding obesity rates for children today.

Furthermore, willful deception is NOT protected free speech.

[DistantWind88]

22. What's deceptive about it?

It's the parents who are responsible for the exploding obesity rates of their junior bulls and heifers. What? They don't notice that their 5 year old is all of a sudden wearing 12 yo husky Levi's???

[K-W]

27. Why are you assuming it isnt?

In your zeal to make sure we all soundly condemn parents why are you jumping to defend a corporation when Im sure you arent an expert on thier business practices?

Parental responsibility and corporate liability are seperate issues.

Just because someone thinks mcdonalds has some responsibility doesnt mean they dont think that parents are responsible. You are overgenerlizing a complicated situation.

[DistantWind88]

29. Why are you assuming it is?

I think its's the parents who decide what their kids eat, not a corporation.

[K-W]

33. I didnt assume anything, what are you talking about?

I never said that Mcdonalds did anything. You are the one claiming that they didnt.

And nobody said mcdonalds decided what people eat, that isnt even remotely the issue here. This is about legal culpability, not blame in your head.

[DistantWind88]

41. I'm talking only about MCD's here

And I'm not claiming they didn't do anything. I asked what was deceptive is all. If kids get fat from eating MCDs, I don't see where MCDs is legally liable (UNLESS they are lying about the content of their food, but, even then, I think you'd NOTICE your kid now weighs more than the combined weight of the twins of the same age next door, and you'd do something about it.)

[K-W]

51. You are confusing personal responsibility and liability.

I understand that you feel that parents need to take responsibility. And I agree. But we arent discussing that. Whether or not parents are fully responsible for thier children has nothing to do with whether or not a corporation is liable.

Lets say hypothitically a restaurant was deceptive.

The parent is still fully responsible for thier child.
But along with that the restaurant is fully responsible for thier product and advertisement.

It doesnt reduce the parents responsibility for thier child to hold companies responsible for thier products and actions.

[DistantWind88]

53. True; but if the restaurant doesn't lie

or serve "defective" products Adan the child gets fat because he/she eats there 4-times a week and supersizes everything, the restaurant (IMHO) should not be liable for the kid weighing 250 pounds at age 10.

[K-W]

60. Children are not the same as adults, legally or actually.

So writing this off as just a standard consumer transaction isnt justified.

Now im not saying there is liability, but it is something that should certianly be comprehensively looked at and not brushed off.

[DistantWind88]

68. Sure it is... the PARENT is

responsible for their child, LEGALLY.

[DistantWind88]

69. Dupe Post

[IrateCitizen]

30. Are you at all familiar with concepts like the "nag factor"???

Prior to 10-12 years ago, we did not have direct marketing to kids, outside of simply showing the particular toy for sale or the like. However, such benign strategies were not good enough for Madison Ave. executives, so they began to develop child marketing focus groups to better study how to manipulate young minds in order to create "consumers for life".

One of the brain children of these executives was something called the "nag factor". Basically, what this is is a technique that sells the item as something a child HAS to have in order to fit in, coupled with a consistent and perpetual "nagging" of their parents to get it for them. Predictably, many parents -- already tired from longer working hours and the like -- eventually give in to these tactics and purchase the product.

For a good look at how our children are being commoditized by corporate America, I would suggest you check out Born to Buy by Juliet Schor, an excellent work on the strategies of the marketing industry.

Also of note is the documentary film "The Corporation". In one part in particular, a young female advertising executive is recounting with pride how she came up with a new strategy for manipulating children in order to sell more of a certain product. At one point, she mused, "People have asked me, 'Don't you feel the least bit guilty about taking advantage of children, manipulating them in order to sell a product?' I would say that I don't worry about that one bit. My job is to maximize my clients' profits, so that's what I do."

While parents are certainly PARTIALLY responsible, responsibility also falls to society as a whole when we allow our children to be manipulated and essentially brainwashed in the pursuit of the almighty dollar by corporate America.

[DistantWind88]

35. Gee; if you can't tell your 5yo "NO!"

then maybe you ought not be a parent...

I wanted McDonald's ALL the time--RARELY got it; could not afford it and when Dad said "no," he meant it. All the nagging in the world was not going to get him to do something he did not WANT to do. Seems like we need dome parents who actually know how to parent.

[andyhappy]

38. do YOU have kids?

[DistantWind88]

42. Si

[andyhappy]

45. just curious

do you let them eat mcdonalds/fast food?

how do you deal with the nag factor?

[DistantWind88]

48. Sure

They eat fast food occasionally, but it is just that occasionally. Nag factor? They ask, I say yes or no, and that's it. They learned a long time ago that whining not only doesn't get you what you want, you might lose something you already have.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnutchuck]

49. Well said, I mentioned something similar below

but yours was much more concise. :thumbsup:

[ultraist]

50. LMAO!!!

I agree, McDs did not withhold info about their product and the dangers of it as the tobacco companies did. The tobacco co.s actually suppressed research and LIED about the fact smoking is deadly. They also put additives in the tobacco to make it more addictive and hid that fact.

Everyone KNOWS there is sugar in the McDs food, they don't hide that fact and "fat" is not addictive as sugar is.

Although, maybe McDs sprinkles cocaine on their burgers, thus the HAPPY part.LOL

[leftynyc]

37. I think it's up to the parents to monitor their

children's behavior. The parents could always say no and refuse to give the money for it.

[andyhappy]

44. the marketing people have a point

I thought it was insane in 'super size' me how kids, in looking at pictures could not name the president or even jesus but they could pick out ronald mcdonald and wendys and lots of other fast food icons.

I think a big part of the problem is to eat healthy you have to spend more money and a lot of people simply cannot afford to eat the good stuff.

and the other factor is so many 'latch key kids' are raised by the tv as their baby sitter...

[LeftyMom]

102. I know

My son is almost 4. The *only* resturaunt he knows the name of is McDonalds. He's never eaten there, but they advertise on ever freakin' kids show.

We try to stick to videos now.

[gollygee]

103. Teletubbies is on PBS

and they don't have commercials *during* shows, just between them. And any commercials they have between shows can't show any product or be specifically about their products - they can only show the brand name and icons (ie Ronald McDonald).

Other than that, I agree with you.

[depakid]

17. McDonalds was successfuly sued

by several vegetarians for lying about their french fries, which actually contained beef extract.

It's not too much of a stretch for them to be sued over their insidious markeing practices aimed at children....

[DistantWind88]

21. As long as they don't lie...who cares

who their adverstising is aimed at? It's all about Parents Parents Parents. Someone has to BUY the little rugrats their daily fix of MCDs.

[K-W]

25. Assessing the liability of companies in no way

lessons the responsibility of parents.

Please dont make that dangerous assumption, nobody is advocating letting parents off. but the fact that parents are mostl responsible for it doesnt mean that the restaurant should get off if it was to some extent liable.

[DistantWind88]

28. What are they liable for in this case?

[K-W]

31. Which case?

I wasnt discussing a spacific case. I am speaking mostly hypothetically here. The cases I have heard about were about marketing that was deceptive about the nutritional content of the food. If indeed a court found that they had decieved people, they certainly could be liable.

[DistantWind88]

36. And I agree with you on that!

[pnutchuck]

39. What about when the children aren't with the parents?

perhaps carpooling with their friend's parents 2 or 3 times a week. Or after soccer or football games, or out with friends. I don't know the last time you were around a 12 yr old, but they're kind of sneaky, and they will find a way to get what they want. If all of their friends are eating it, then they're going to want to eat it.

If the Surgeon General can admit that obesity is a problem, then shouldn't we admit that we are no match for these giant manipulative advertising conglomerates? I mean these companies spend millions on research into the minds of our children. Shouldn't they be at least held accountable for what they're peddling? I mean, years ago Coca Cola really contained Coke, cocaine. Laudlin, a cure for headaches, was really heroine. Shouldn't excessive amounts of sugars that can lead to diabetes be lumped into "dangerous" as well?

Freedom of speech is one thing, but deceptive advertisement targeted at young children not even capable of writing their names is down right criminal. In Italy, they just passed a law in 2004 that children under the age of 7 could not even be used in advertisements.

[DistantWind88]

43. Where do they get the money?

[K-W]

52. So parents can have no expectation that thier neighbors wont

sell thier children damaging products if they try and give them some money to teach them how to participate in our economy?

Last time I checked the idea wasnt to produce a dangerous anarchy, it was a safe free society.

[DistantWind88]

55. If you can't stop your child from buying

and consuming too much fast food, maybe you should not give them money to spend freely.

[pnutchuck]

61. So, no lunch money, not even the cost of 2 dlls?

because last time I saw a McD's commercial, they had happy meals for .99. In fact, don't they have an entire menu of items now for .99? I never eat there myself, vegetarian, but as I recall, it doesn't take a lot of money to get large fries and a coke. I bet, the kid can even find a friend to help him out.

[DistantWind88]

63. They don't sell McDs

at my kids' school cafeteria--they do at yours?

[pnutchuck]

75. No, there's one only 2 blocks from the school.

I'm happy to see that you have such wonderful control over every aspect of your child's life. That you know what they are up to every minute of the day, is just comendable. However, you are part of a minority. Many, many parents are working 8-10 hrs a day and cannot afford babysitting, or do not have the priviledge of afterschool programs. Unfortunately, many working class parents are just trying to pay the rent leaving their children alone to while away the hours in front of the TV or on the streets.

If you have forgotten the influence McD's has on working class families, just rewatch Eddie Murphy's Raw skit about McDonald's again. He very succinctly articulates what being able to even go to McD's meant to him as a child.

[DistantWind88]

78. Going to McDonald's meant a lot to me as a child too

I still didn't get to eat there that often.

If you can't BE a parent to your kids and make sure they are brought up healthy and happy, maybe you should not have them...

[pnutchuck]

89. Agreed, however if the parents don't receive a decent education

themselves, how are they going to teach their children. Education concerning proper health education, and physical programs could be instrumental in curbing this epedemic.

Telling uneducated people not to have children is like telling a cat to bark. Unfortunately, studies show that the higher the education, the longer people wait to have children.

[K-W]

62. So only perfect parents are good parents.

I would hate to be raised by you if you think parents should be able to control every behavior of thier child.

I think you will find that in real life, parents arent just perfect monitering robots. They are flawed people with complicated lives.

If you want to come up with the money to pay people to always watch thier children, go ahead.

[DistantWind88]

67. I don't have to always watch my kids---they know what's

acceptable behavior and what's not. Not that they always behave--They get into mischief, do things they shouldn't at times, but all in all they are great kids who know they can't eat at McD's 4 times a week without me knowing and putting a stop to it.

[ultraist]

58. McDs does not control my kids' diets.

I take responsibility for what my kids eat. If they were poisoned because some restaurant violated FDA regs, that's a different story.

McDs meets the basic food regs and should be able to advertise to whatever market they choose.

No ONE can force you to eat McDs and they are not "hiding" what they put in their product. At least not that we know of! LOL! Happy, happy meals!

[depakid]

88. Sure they hide what's in their product!

When was the last time you saw a list of ingredients?

More than that- they're deceptive.

Their marketing aimed at children and families promotes the notion that McDonalds is healthy and wholesome- which is most assuredly isn't.

Frankly, I see little difference between fast food advertising and cigarette advertising.

[gollygee]

107. Advertisers call marketing to child using the "nag factor"

they aim the ads at children and hope the children will nag their parents to buy things for them. The responsibility is on parents to say no, of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't also wrong for McDonalds and other advertisers to market to children in that way.

[Ravenseye]

64. That I agree with.

See they lied, they got caught, it was proven, they paid.

what this seems to be more about is marketing practices. What do we consider responsible or even legal marketing practices. I don't think McDonald's broke the law in any way. I don't think they lied about their food, or it's contents, or it's health quality.

Serving veggie burgers that have pork in them is one thing. That's a lie. Serving crappy food to someone who wants to buy it, knowing it's contents or not, isn't their problem.

McDonald's shouldn't be responsible for someone elses ignorance and no company should be responsible for explaining the extremes of what not to do with a product, as long as they fully disclose what they're selling.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. As long as they're honest about what they're selling, no.

No false claims about the content of their product = no lawsuit, IMO.

[RUDUing2]

40. how dare McDonalds make an affordable product that people like...

damn them they should be burned at the stake!!!!


although as a parent in the distinct minority in the US I admit I don't get the fuss or mindset...

I have never had to deal w/a couch potato or a child who is overweight or even a bit plump...

My 10 yr old is on Megestarol to stimulate his appetite (he has had IBS since infancy)..we do things like add 2 tablespoons of Vegetable Oil to milkshakes to UP his fat and calorie intake...His school lunch is turkey or ham no bread...only chips he will eat are tortilla chips and baked lays...he takes a Little Debbie Cupcake, but doesn't always eat it..he takes a juice box..but half the time drinks water instead...at the store he begs for baby carrots instead of candy bars...we *make* him eat a bowl of ice cream every night...we buy whole milk instead of 2%..and *make* him drink 2 glasses of chocolate milk a day (under directions of his pedi g.i.)..

He is the most extreme of my 4 but all 4 have been skinny minnies..

my 16 old dd is 5'1 and 103 lbs...my 20 yo dd is 5'0 and 100 lbs..my oldest son is the *heaviest* he has ever been, he is 24 and is 5'10 and 140 lbs....

so I will admit I am not the best one to pass judgement on this....

[theboss]

54. Suing companies for selling legal products is wrong

There may be a case for deceptive ad practices or deceptive trade practices. But to see McDonald's simply for existing is wrong.

I'm big on personal responsibility. If you got fat from eating McDonalds, that means you shouldn't have eaten so much damn McDonalds.

[Radical Activist]

59. McDonald's deserves to be sued for a wide variety of reasons

and I think they deserve whatever they get.

First, the nutrition information is obscure or unavailable in most stores. It was only posted at all in some stores in the last few years, so that argument doesn't mean much. When you market a product that you know is harmful to people then yes you should probably be held accountable to some degree.

Personally, I think we should ban advertising to young children. That would solve a lot of the problems. This would be a popular issue if a Democrat would just ask parents if they would like it if they didn't have to hear their kid whine and beg them to take them to McDonald's to get the latest happy meal toy they saw on TV. Republicans would stand by the corporations and show that they don't really support families. Its a perfect wedge issue. Too bad most Democrats are too closely tied to corporate money to make this proposal.

[ultraist]

66. Big daddy mentality

Why should we restrict our free market and free speech? Why do we need to be dependent on big daddy government to censor our advertisements about food products? Are we that stupid, helpless and passive?

NOT.

Are restaurants required by law to have the nutritional info listed on their product as is required for food sold in grocery stores? I don't think so. Maybe they should be required to make this info available to consumers.

BTW,Papa Johns has this info on their website menu. Maybe you should patronage businesses who do this and boycott those that don't.

[Radical Activist]

74. I'm talking about advertising to children

Are young children that stupid? Yes. Young children have not yet developed the skills to properly evaluate commercials. Especially when you have advertising companies conducting endless research on how best to scientifically manipulate children and get them to beg their parents for the latest toy. Are young children capable of making sound decisions about their nutritional health when McDonald's is using toys and clowns to get their loyalty? Still, I wouldn't limit this to food. It is unfair to the children and the parents.

[DistantWind88]

76. That's why parents

have this magic word at their disposal--it goes like this:

Kid: "Mommy, can i have McDonald's?"

Mommy: "No"

Simple! The sound decision about nutritional health has been made by someone who is capable; the parent.

[Radical Activist]

79. but Moooooooommmmm

please, please please please please!!!!! I reeeeaaaalllyyyyyy want it!!!! please, please please please please!!!!! I reeeeaaaalllyyyyyy want it!!!! please, please please please please!!!!! I reeeeaaaalllyyyyyy want it!!!! please, please please please please!!!!! I reeeeaaaalllyyyyyy want it!!!! without end.

You are oversimplifying the issue. Are you a parent? Yes, they can say no, but it isn't fair. It also makes it harder for parents to make these decisions with commercials that are specifically designed to make kids bug their parents until they get sick of it and give in.

Corporations should not be allowed to prey upon young undeveloped minds. McDonald's is trying to establish addictive patterns of behavior that will last into adulthood by marketing to children. It is wrong. A parent also can't be with their child 24/7 during teenage years when they make their own decisions about food sometimes. It would be nice if schools taught the reasons teens shouldn't eat at McDonalds, but I suspect all that corporate sponsorship of schools may have effected what they talk about in health class. I don't remember that from High School.

[ultraist]

87. I'm a parent

And if I allow my kids to watch tv, I can expect that they will have their lists of what they HAVE to have, especially around Christmas when advertisers crank it up.

Parents should limit their kids tv not so much because of the ads, but the other trash that is on: MINDLESS, low brow crap.

I don't think this is a case where freedom of speech infringes on someone's rights and should be curtailed, such as saying something that incites violence or causes imminent danger.

Parents choose what they expose their kids too. Let's not give the States that much power in our parenting decisions. What will they dictate next? That we have to force our kids to watch the 700 club?

If you think McDs engages in unethical practices (practices that are legal but unethical), boycott them. It is sleezy to market to kids the way they do, but that doesn't mean it should be outlawed.

[RUDUing2]

100. I said no...and it is time for you to stop acting this way. guess what

it works if the child knows that begging will not result in the parent *giving in*..oh yeah...I am a parent..of 4..ages 24, 20, 16 and 10.

IMO parents who blame MacDonalds are simply refusing to take responsiblity for their own inability to say no to their child and mean it..they are too busy wanting their child to *like* them as a friend, rather then respect them as parents, they don't realize that both are possible and doing your job as a parent means being able to set limits and say no and mean it.

[Dorian Gray]

109. So,

then we're talking about suing McDonald's because their commercials cause our children to annoy us then?

Okay...

[depakid]

95. You're barking up the wrong tree...

Don't try to convince libertarians of the need for regulation of abusive business practices. You'll usually get the "just partonize other businesses" line in return- as if that's ever been the solution to anything.

Your argument about the nature of children's cognitive development and their consquent lack of any self defense against McDonald's child psychologists (and yes, they use them) is well taken- and banning this form of advertising- at least during children's programming would be a good first step toward dealing with the childhood obesity epidemic.

It's more of a public health issue than it is a moral argument.

[pnutchuck]

80. Typically, most restaurants are not affordable for every meal

However, McD's has engineered their food and menu in such a way, that they are affordable for every meal. Yes, McD's also provides nutritional info on their website, however only about 20% of the country have computers.

And to answer your question "Are we that stupid, helpless and passive?"

Yes, Bush is in office!

[ProfessorGAC]

77. How Sure Are You About That, Rad?

I've seen the nutritional postings at McD's for at least 10 years now. And, there's been a sign up at the one near my house (and i really don't go there that often), that says "Nutritional Information Available Upon Request" since they opened in the early 80's.

I think the information has been more open and honest than you're suggesting. I understand people's point about the marketing to little kids. That's a little snaky.

But, i really don't think they've been hiding the fat content or sugar content of their foods. I don't eat there very often because i know that a steady diet of it is not good for me. Somehow, i had the information. And i didn't go to the library to research it. It had to be fairly readily available or i wouldn't have know it.
The Professor

[Radical Activist]

81. Upon request?

Have you seen Super Size Me yet? How many stores didn't have the information at all, or had to search long and hard to find it? I wish I remembered.
Does anybody really read that stuff anyway?

[ProfessorGAC]

82. I Did The Movie

I forgot about the part where they couldn't find it. And, i agree probably nobody really reads it. But, if it's there, it's not hidden. Now, if they can't find it, that's very different.
The Professor

[ultraist]

90. I do and make my kids look at the sugar content when they are whining

about wanting to eat sugar cereal for breakfast or something else that is very sugary. They need to learn the basics about food including what foods are high in fat and sugar so they can learn to feed themselves properly.

Sugar cereals are only for desert in our house.

[pnutchuck]

83. I think the problem lies in the argument itself...

Because even if the information is posted, the people who are eating at McD's several times a week, are not educated in nutritional jargon. Most people don't understand the amount of calories they should be taking in on a single day, much less in a single meal. The very idea that there is a difference between the calories in fat and carbohydrates is just rocket science to some. Perhaps pressing for better Health education programs in our schools would be another way of going about it instead of law suits that won't help the underlying problem of ignorence.

[ProfessorGAC]

85. That's A Fair Cop

I agree that it would be a safe bet that no more than 1 in 3 people know the amount of calories they should eat. On top of that, probably half of those people that know really don't care. (Like me.) I know i should, at my age and size, be at about 2500 - 3000 calories. But, i have NO idea what my real intake is.

I think i like your solution, though, better than lawsuits. I think that when lawsuits appear to be taking the place of personal responsibility (whether that's true or not), it leads to the anti-litigation sentiment that makes "trial lawyers" some sort of boogiemen. Real injury, and real negligence all gets swept away in a tide of public apathy.
The Professor

[ultraist]

93. Excellent idea!

Require them to provide the info in easy layman terms that is posted in an obvious place inside and at the drivethru.

Most schools teach the basic nutritional info and if businesses were required to provide the info on a 6th grade level, that should suffice.

[aden_nak]

71. Personal Responsibility.

I know we all like it, somewhere deep down, when a huge, monolithic corperation that spreads its pervasive feces-like logo across the landscape gets kicked right in the package. But I think the greater issue here is Personal Responsibility. Should McDonalds be able to claim that their product (specificly, the meat and the fries) is high in nutritous content? No. But I've never seen them do that. People need to take personal responsibility and say, "I ate fast food every day for five years, and now I have a big ass."

I have a friend who's working his way down from the very high 200s right now, he has always struggled with his weight. He ate crap food in high school and college, and even a bit after. And I've asked his opinion on the topic. His response? "Yeah, I knew it was bad for me. I ate it anyhow. And now I have to be more careful."

[evil_orange_cat]

72. You have a choice... don't buy it, don't eat it. Nobody is force-feeding!

I don't like McDonald's personally, but you have a choice people.

[idlisambar]

84. The point about marketing to children is well made

I would not like to see the issue settled through the legal system though. I would like to see the government impose a "happy meal" tax. :)

[elehhhhna]

91. We parents must teach our children the truth about marketing.

They need to be skeptical and suspicious of commercials, the younger the better. They will eventually be exposed to this as adults so why wait? Thank God the marketers make it soooo easy. The toy commercials that tout boring toys. The cereal commercials that make cereal "fun"...the snacks that make you "cool". Kids aren't stupid. If you point this stuff out, they pick it up really quick.

[elehhhhna]

92. OMG! LOOK HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1192499

[pnutchuck]

97. party of there!!!!! n/t

[ultraist]

99. Good advice!

The fact is, by the time kids are old enough to be set loose with cash to make their own purchases, they should be well equipped to make fairly smart purchasing decisions. A well informed consumer gets taken less often.

Even at 10, my daughter can get a good idea of what is cheaply made and overpriced or over hyped in ads. When kids spend their "own" money, they think about it a bit more.

Or, don't allow your kids to become consumers.

[LiberallyInclined]

94. No.

they should not be sued for their legal products.

[phylny]

96. In answer to your question, no the shouldn't

Unless a child has free reign and money in his or her pockets, it's the parents who choose when to go to McDonald's. Parents who can't say no or who patronize McDonald's have made their decision.

We eat fast food less than one time per month. Somehow, we were/are able to withstand the pressure to go there.

[Taverner]

98. Nope - you are not a neo con

And I agree with you - I almost think these kinds of suits are introduced by freeperish lawyers to pursue *tort reform* in the big picture...

[Dorian Gray]

104. No, you're not.

There is still such a thing as personal responsibility. Particularly when talking about food.

[sweetheart]

105. There is decent grounds for a lawsuit

I remember being taken to Macdonalds in the 60's when it was "millions
served" and there were 2 giant (really giant) yellow arches across the
whole side of the building 4 stories tall. Our family had no idea
that the food was designed to be addictive, but the kids loved it, and
we ate there every week without fail ... seems now perhaps that i've
eaten regularly at macdonalds until 2002... not daily, but weekly, and
luckily don't have diabetes (yet!)... though diet is much improved
since.

There were no ingredients warnings until the 90's. The ingredients
were chosen purely for taste, not for nutrition, and if it could be
proven that the ingredients were chosen for addiction value as well,
then there is grounds for a class action lawsuit... on behalf of a
generation of people who ate there in good faith, believing the food
a restaurant would serve, would be nutritious at least in not making
them sick!

It does make sense, that if you serve food to the public, that you are
"selling drugs", and if your drugs make people sick and they need
special treatment, you're liabel.... that was the case with big pharma
medicines like "th..." somethings they used to give women in the 50's
60's that caused birth defects... and more recent medicines/foods
that make people ill. Why is food different than any other drug?

[txaslftist]

110. Hell no. Who the hell is addicted to a Big Mac?

If you want to be healthy, don't eat it. Take personal responsibility for your choices.

Sheesh.