Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fat Foods: Back in Court

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
sangha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 01:23 PM
Original message
Fat Foods: Back in Court
http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1101030811-472858,00.html?cnn=yes

"When a group of obese teenagers sued McDonald's, claiming that it made them fat, the widely publicized case drew howls of derision. But the burger giant and its competitors aren't laughing anymore. When Federal Judge Robert Sweet threw out the teenagers' case last February, reasoning that customers knew the dangers of eating Big Macs and supersize fries, he went on — in less noted parts of his ruling — to set the stage for future lawsuits. He noted that "Chicken McNuggets, rather than being merely chicken fried in a pan, are a McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilized by the home cook," including ground chicken skin, hydrogenated oils and dimethylpolysiloxane, an antifoaming agent, and he questioned whether customers understood the risks of eating McDonald's chicken over regular chicken.

Attorneys for the teens, grateful for the judge's guidance, filed a revised lawsuit alleging that McDonald's engaged in deceptive advertising, in part because it failed to adequately disclose additives and processing methods that make its food less healthful. The suit is back in front of Judge Sweet, in New York City, for another round. (McDonald's says its McNuggets contain the same ingredients found in grocery-store chicken and says the second suit is as baseless as the first.)...."

If these cases are so "baseless" then why are these fast-food finaglers trying so hard to "lighten" their menu?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sierrak9s Donating Member (60 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. They can't win, can they?
In response to public demand, they introduce different choices to see if people want to buy them. That response to public demand on their part is trumpeted as an admission of "guilt." On the other hand, if they had ignored public demand and refused to introduce different choices, then they're "forcing" a fat-laden menu on helpless consumers.
Bah. I'm fat. I'm fat because I like to eat fatty food and I don't choose to exercise enough self-control to prevent weight gain. Like every other person over the age of five, I know perfectly well how to become un-fat, and I have the ability to do so if I choose.
Mommy doesn't need to control what I eat. I can do that myself, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC