McDonald's Gluttons Get Another Chance In Court (VANITY)

Vanity | 01/28/05 | Lark

[LarkNeelie]

An appeals court has overturned part of the decision dismissing a case against McDonalds that charged the fast-food giant was responsible for the obesity and related health problems of two of its loyal (and I do mean really loyal) customers. Now the plaintiffs have refiled their suit, using the advice the judge gave them when he first dismissed the case.

But Sweet left open the door for plaintiffs -- including a 400-pound teenager who said he eats at McDonald's every day -- to refile the case, with guidance on how the suit might be strengthened.

"For instance, Chicken McNuggets, rather than being merely chicken fried in a pan, are a McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilised by the home cook," Sweet wrote in his opinion.

"If plaintiffs were able to flesh out this argument in an amended complaint," the judge wrote, "it may establish that the dangers of McDonald's products were not commonly well known and thus that McDonald's had a duty toward its customers."

I'm no lawyer but I don't think it's all that unusual for judges to advise plaintiffs. I don't even think it's anything to get steamed over - after all, the judge is tax-payer paid and the justice system is supposed to be available to all so why shouldn't he dispense advice right along with opinions? But along with all his other advice, I can't think why the judge didn't advise the teenagers' to sue their parents for neglect, or report the parents to the appropriate agency for failing to properly supervise their children or provide proper nutrition.

But it seems to me it is the phrase "various elements not utilised by the home cook" in the judge's opinion that is stupid because isn't that the reason people go OUT to eat? If you get in the restaurant exactly what you can easily produce at home, why the heck would you go to the restaurant? Take it one step farther and ask why do we buy prepared food in the grocery store instead of growing it ourselves? Are supermarkets next on the hitlist for selling cookies, cakes and ice-cream? How about that luscious WONDER bread that we're told has as much nutrition as styrofoam? (They'll have to take that from my cold, dead hands.)

Sheesh. Restaurants not only have to provide delicious food quick, fast, and in a hurry, but apparently have to play responsible parent and regulate the caloric intake of their customers. (I'd prefer restaurants pay money and attention to promoting sanitation, proper food handling, and nice bathrooms.) Maybe McDonald's should refuse to serve any one under the age of 18 unless there is a parent present (don't we keep kids out of movies that way?), or require ALL customers (or accompanying parent) to sign a waiver accepting the risks and pledging not to sue if they gain weight.

The idea of suing restaurants and food providers for their customers' lack of self-control or sensible eating habits has the nation in a quiet uproar, so much so that Congress has felt the need to get involved. There are two factions in the legislature - one that wants to leave the customer in charge of and responsible for their own behavior and another that thinks government should 'help' the citizens make good choices.

The Center For Consumer Freedom/Promoting Personal Responsibility and Protecting Consumer Choice says:

Every year around this time, state legislators return to work armed with a laundry list of proposals to replace last year's failed bills. For the bevy of big brother bureaucrats out to tax and regulate certain foods, this year is no different. They've come to the table with a buffet of new bills supplanting consumer choice and personal responsibility with big government bureaucracy. Thankfully, a separate group of legislators has proposed a new wave of "Cheeseburger Bills" designed to prevent frivolous obesity litigation against restaurants and food producers.

So far fourteen states have passed "Cheeseburger Bills." This year, ten more states (Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming) have proposed similar legislation. Of particular interest is New Mexico's "Right To Eat Enchiladas Act."

This is not the only case McDonalds has had to fight. Last summer, McDonald's was sued for not having changed over to a healthier cooking oil.

"..a new lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco insists the burger giant has failed in its promise to move to a healthier cooking oil, and it is being brought not by fry-eaters but by Kathy Fettke, a "personal coach" and infomercial pitchwoman who "is living her dream by helping others live their dreams."

I have my own dream. That someday we get real tort reform. But I won't hold my breath.

[Cobra64]

Personally, I could never understand why anyone would eat that excuse for 'food'.

When we're tavelling, we have home made food. home cooked food, egg salad sandwiches, tuna salad sandwiches, cole slaw, picles, cashews, pecans, peanuts, oranges, apples, pears, and even popcorn.

The last time I ever ate from a fast food excuse for ;food' was at an Arby's in Denver CO in 1968,

Food is what you prepare for your family.

When I lived in CO, out on the range, we shot out game, or caught fresh trout, and cooked fresh food over a campfire.

If McDonalds, and the rest of those excuses of magnetic attractions of lazy people went out of business, it would not bother me one bit.

Pancakes and gravy, chesse omelettes, bacon, whole milk; roast beef on rye buttered bread, dill pickles; prime rib on the bone, gravy over mashed potoatoes, after artichokes in drawn butter with garlic, salt and pepper; Breyer's ice cream with Creme Boulieaute. And a few Mounds Almond Joy bars, just before bedtime.

Keeps me at my same weight and waisteline today as I was 36 years ago. The one and only time I ate this excuse for food at a Big Mac.. whatever that is.