« on my knees | Main | homework »

speaking of fattening hamburgers....

The decision should have simply read:

Parents are responsible for their children, not fast food companies.

Three cheers to this judge for making the right decision instead of giving free reign to litigious crackpots to blame their ails on every segment of society except for themselves.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference speaking of fattening hamburgers....:

» Judge Rules, "Be Responsible For Yourself!" from Neurotic Fishbowl
I am so glad to hear that the judge on the McDonald's obesity suit threw it out of court today. [Read More]

Comments

Bradley's father, Israel, said he never saw anything in the Bronx restaurants that informed him of the food's ingredients. "I always believed McDonald's was healthy for my children," he said in an affidavit.
So either he's lying, or he's a fucking pernicious retard. Congrats to the judge in this case.

It's just way to easy to file a lawsuit in this country. People need to learn that they are responsible for their own actions. If they eat at McDonalds every day, hell yeah they are gonna be fat! I'm glad to see the judge tossed this one out.

Holy crap Batman. I'm overweight, and I'd be embarassed to try a stunt like this. As if anyone but be is responsible for me jamming enough food down my throat to cause a problem.

Hang on. Gotta go file that suit for the bus I stepped in front of...

Let's not forget why litigation against corporations exists as a tool in the first place. Cause otherwise, companies would make the cheapest products they could make, and openly lie in thier advertisements in order to sell as many of them as possible.

I love the little "Hi, I'm Howard Stern" stance you've all taken, but it's really not so perniciously retarded for someone (someone foreign especially) to believe that McDonalds food was healthy for thier kids. They have such glossy friendly happy advertising. And McDonalds DOES present thier food as healthy, even though it's not even in that realm.

You know, I'm actually kind of disappointed in you, Michelle, that you would take such a simplistic stance. Even unsophisticated people need to be protected. On one level this lawsuit seems absurd, but look at what McDonalds was saying:
"[McDonalds'] attorneys warned that if this case were allowed to proceed "it would lead to an avalanche of litigation."

They're not saying they hold no responsibility, they're saying that if they're held responsible at this level, then they will have to deal with a lot of other litigation.

I think a telling quote from the article was:
(((Samuel Hirsch, the lawyer bringing the case, called McDonald's food "physically or psychologically addictive." Hirsch accused the company of deliberately withholding information and targeting children. The effects of its food on people's health were "a very insipid, toxic kind of thing," Hirsch said.

Hirsch was also critical of McDonald's billion-dollar advertising campaign. "Young individuals are not in a position to make a choice after the onslaught of advertising and promotions," Hirsch contended. )))

Do you think those arguments are completely invalid? You think McDonalds has no responsibility for the psychological effect of thier carefully calculated marketing campaigns? In this modern world of mega-marketing muscle, focus groups, and such...consumers really do need protection more than ever.

Daniel, you have got to be kidding! How is it that 90% of the population knows damn well what McDonalds can do to your waistline? Maybe it's because we aren't constantly looking for a crutch to hold up our own irresponsibilities. The 10% that don't understand are the same people who hold society responsible for raising their kids, paying their bills, sheltering them, etc. What person doesn't know that greasy food = fat??? Foreigners? Like people who eat McDonalds in France don't get fat? Your response is just as lazy as the people who present these lawsuits.

Litigation against corporations is about money, not justice.

Daniel, you've really got to be kidding. Big Macs aren't UNhealthy, they're simply burgers. If you make cheeseburgers and fries at home from freerange beef and organic potatoes, and eat tons of them every day, while leading a sedentary lifestyle, you'll get fat. Just as fat as from McDonalds burgers.

McDonalds is perfectly healthy for your kids if they eat it, oh, say twice a month. Anyone who thinks eating bread and fried beef with a side of french fries as part of a daily diet is healthy, is a retard. If this is really such a huge problem, then arrest the irresponsible and unqualified parents instead of suing McDonalds.

"In this modern world of mega-marketing muscle, focus groups, and such...consumers really do need protection more than ever."

yeah, daniel. more consumers need protection. it's called "common sense".

Let's not forget why litigation against corporations exists as a tool in the first place. Cause otherwise, companies would make the cheapest products they could make, and openly lie in thier advertisements in order to sell as many of them as possible.

What a crock:

1) Openly lying in advertising is already illegal, and regulated by the FTC. That is a totally separate issue from litigation by individuals claiming to have been harmed by corporations, and only a very uninformed person would conflate the two.

2) Businesses rely on several things to ensure that they remain going concerns. Two of those things are goodwill and repeat business. By selling shoddy products under false pretenses and generating ill will among potential clientele, a business can guarantee that it will not be around long.

. . . it's really not so perniciously retarded for someone (someone foreign especially) to believe that McDonalds food was healthy for thier kids. They have such glossy friendly happy advertising. And McDonalds DOES present thier food as healthy, even though it's not even in that realm.

As to the first claim here, I respectfully disagree. Feeding your child the same thing that frequently is not healthy no matter what it is. And I'd like to see where McDonald's has ever presented their food as "healthy" in the general sense, as opposed to claiming that some individual product now has less fat than it did before.

I haven't eaten at a McDonald's restaurant in many years, but when I used to go, there would be a poster hanging up listing all their different menu items and their nutritional information. Or maybe it was Burger King. Do fast-food places still do this?

They're not saying they hold no responsibility, they're saying that if they're held responsible at this level, then they will have to deal with a lot of other litigation.

Actually, they're saying both. They're saying that if you open the Pandora's Box of allowing stupid people to sue the restaurant when nobody forced them to eat the food in the first place, you'll never get it closed again.

Hate to tell you this, but this suit's going to come back:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/index.htm

According the story, the plaintiffs have 30 days to file an amended complaint, at which time, the litigation will go forward. Given how much effort the plaintiffs' lawyers are undoubtedly expending, believe me, they'll be baaaack.

-Tony

Damn! There goes my chance to expand my bank account AND shrink my waistline at the same time ;)

Andy

Does this mean that I can't sue Michele for making me fat due to all the time I spend here reading her blog instead of going out and getting some exercise?

I do agree that there does need to be a mechanism for making companies responsible for their business practices. History shows that companies will engage in deceptive trade practices if they can get away with it.

However, people also need to take for their own actions. These kids didn't just suddenly balloon up overnight. It takes time to put on that much excess weight. What did their father think was making them fat that entire time so that it was a sudden revelation to him that McDonald's food wasn't the best thing for them to be eating?

If you think McDonald's has been advertising their food as healthy, you must be seeing different commercials than I am. All I've ever seen McDonald's claim is that their food is fast and cheap and their restaurants kid friendly in terms of toys with Happy Meals and playgrounds to play in.

In fact, the only fast food chain I know of that markets their food as being part of a healthy diet is Subway, despite the fact that the Jarod diet really isn't healthy for you.

This lawsuit is a crock. Its not about deceptive trade practices. Its about people hoping to win the legal lottery.

err...that third paragraph should have read, "People need to take responsibility for their own actions"...

Now that the court threw this case away; maybe these kids will finally get a well deserved darwin award....shaped liked a clogged artery.

Even IF McDonald's was perfectly healthy (and I remember growing up with the calorie charts posted at the local one) eating as much of it as some people do would certainly lead to an obesity problem. Hell, I bet if you ate enough organically grown carrots, you could get fat. In any case, I ate McDonald's growing up, and so have billions of other people....and not all of them are fat. Logic should tell us that at the very least, McD's is not the sole culprit here.

I just get little weary of the whole "people need to take responsibility for thier actions" absolutist stance. Of course. I'm sure every single one of you navigates this relatively dangerous world with supreme responsibility and skill, and that your awareness and self-responsibility never wavers...that you never fall subject to mistaken impressions about products that put you in danger...that you are always aware of your liability in every situation...

I'm not saying people should sue McDonalds because thier kid is fat, I'm just saying that this post and most of the responses to it initially were pretty uni-faceted.

I read all the responses to my comment and I appreciate them all. Just remember that one man's 'common sense' is another man's revelation. Everyone thinks THEY have common sense.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying, Daniel.

Common sense should not be legislated. And if you lack common sense, it is not the fault of the company whose products you buy. Should we dumb down every single thing we produce just on the off chance that some brainless fool is going to put his pop-tart in the toaster without taking it out of the paper wrapping?

Warning labels have gotten ridiculous. Personally, I think if you take your electric blowdryer into the bath with you, you deserve the Darwin award that's coming.

Speaking as one who doesn't ".....navigate this relatively dangerous world with supreme responsibility and skill....", especially the skill part, I can say that most of my troubles have been of my own making.

Victim mentality drags us all down, not just the "victims".

So we have opposable thumbs..."survival of the fittest" should still apply.