Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McDonald's Plaintiff Not Your Average McFatso
forbes ^ | Dan Ackman,

Posted on 01/29/2005 2:42:15 AM PST by freepatriot32

NEW YORK - McDonald's has so far prevailed in the lawsuits that have asserted it is partly to blame for its customers' bulging waistlines.

But 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."

Fettke, who has also worked as a television host and actor--she played a bridesmaid in Flubber--is married to the similarly employed Rich Fettke, who bills himself as the "best-selling author of Extreme Success." She is also a holder of one of the International Coaching Federation's first Master Certified Coach credentials, an accrediting organization of which Rich Fettke was once vice president.

Kathy Fettke's lawyer is Stephen Joseph, founder of and counsel to BanTransFats.com, a San Francisco-based organization whose goal is the reduction and elimination of trans fats from all food products. It claimed a major success in suing Kraft Foods (nyse: KFT - news - people ) over trans fats in Oreos. But when Joseph dropped the California suit in May 2003, Kraft said it had been working on ways to remove trans fats from the cookies and already had a reduced-fat version on the market.

In the McDonald's (nyse: MCD - news - people ) case, the plaintiffs are not seeking monetary damages and said, "The lawsuit has nothing to do with obesity. Trans fats cause serious medical health problems other than obesity." Indeed they allege that according to the Harvard School of Public Health, 30,000 or more premature heart disease deaths are caused each year by trans fats. (Harvard did do a study on the effects of trans fats in 1994, but concluded that approximately 30,000 deaths "could be attributable" to the consumption of trans fats.)

McDonald's already announced in 2002 it would shift to a new cooking oil with half the trans fats by February 2003, but said operational difficulties have delayed the changeover. The company said it would not comment on the complaint's specific allegations because it had not seen the lawsuit and that it has reduced trans fatty acid (TFA) levels in its McNuggets and other chicken products.

"In February 2003, we made a broad public statement that the change in our cooking oil was taking longer than anticipated and would be delayed," McDonald's spokeswoman Lisa Howard told USA Today. "We continue to work hard to achieve our ambitious goals for reduction of TFAs in our cooking oil."

The lawsuit accuses McDonald's of profiting from its earlier announcement that it was about to cut trans fats, misleading the public. "McDonald's has made only a token attempt to inform its customers that it had not made the change to the new cooking oil. It has deliberately allowed the public to be misled...Meanwhile, it has been reaping millions of dollars in additional profits from customers who believe that they are getting the new healthier oil. If many of those customers knew that they had been duped, they would not eat at McDonald's," BanTransFats.com said in a statement. It wants the company to take more effective steps to inform its customers about its failure to make the change and that it in fact make the change to new cooking oil as soon as possible. Neither McDonald's nor BanTransFats.com was immediately available for comment.

An earlier lawsuit filed in a federal court in Manhattan by overweight teenagers was dismissed, though it may be re-filed. (See: "Judge To Fat Plaintiffs: Where's The Beef?")

It is not immediately clear how Fettke figures as the plaintiff in the case, but according to the Web site for her "reality radio show," called The Edge, there is little that Fettke is NOT concerned with. The show claims to give listeners "the edge" in their lives "with cutting edge information on how to make more money, create [their] dream career, enjoy optimum health, and become more successful in [their] relationships and overall life fulfillment." Cutting trans fats fits in there somewhere


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: New York
KEYWORDS: aclulist; activists; average; foodpolice; govwatch; mcdonalds; mcfatso; not; petafreaks; plaintiff; supersizme; tortrefornnow; veganfreaks; your
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last
To: metesky

You say, "The perfect Fettke family.
I think I'm gonna blow lunch."

Personally, I think this perfect family should be forced to pay all court costs (including lawyers, judges, even those who make copies of depositions, etc.) Maybe that way they would stop trying to use the courts to gain publicity!


61 posted on 01/29/2005 8:31:45 AM PST by onevoter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
What is in the low-card breakfast bowl, on the top?

Eggs sausage and cheese

62 posted on 01/29/2005 10:10:25 AM PST by freepatriot32 (http://chonlalonde.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Is no one reading the articles anymore?

They're not asking for monetary damages--they're asking McDonald's to switch to healthier fat. From what I've read, trans fat is even nastier than saturated fat, and more of a health problem. They're actually performing a public service because McDonald's food will be healthier, and pressure will be put on other processed food manufacturers to get rid of trans fat as well.

There's a knee jerk reaction here to criticize any legal action. Some legal actions are productive!!
63 posted on 01/29/2005 10:41:42 AM PST by Republican in CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
From what I've read, the deal with the coffee suit was that McDonald's superheated its coffee in order to keep it fresh longer. The coffee was not just hot coffee like we would have at home, it was heated to a much, much higher temp, to save McDonald's a few bucks a day in coffee.

As the case was reported in the MSM, the suit sounded ridiculous, but after I read the details, I think perhaps McDonald's was being irresponsible.
64 posted on 01/29/2005 10:48:25 AM PST by Republican in CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Allosaurs_r_us
Maybe if we didn't have so many of them we could cut down on these idiotic lawsuits.

I think if we got serious about cutting down on these lawsuits, this field would be less attractive.

Supply and demand--reduce the number of feeding troughs, and the pigs have to go elsewhere to find food.

65 posted on 01/29/2005 11:14:15 AM PST by He Rides A White Horse (Go Eagles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Republican in CA
From what I've read, the deal with the coffee suit was that McDonald's superheated its coffee in order to keep it fresh longer.

But what you have read is actually not relevant. The coffee was hot because it was supposed to be served hot, and it is not unreasonable to assume Ms. Liebeck expected it to be so when she ordered it. It is also a safe bet she would have complained if it had not been.

Furthermore, nobody representing the McDonald's Corporation or its franchisees, including its CEO right on down to Ronald McDonald himself placed Ms. Liebeck under any kind of physical, mental or emotional duress causing her to place the coffee between her legs and remove the lid, thereby causing the injuries she sustained.

It is because the attorneys from the McDonald's Corporation failed in keeping the focus on this, common sense and personal responsibility, not some horsehockey nonsense argument about the temperature the coffee was served under that they lost the case.

66 posted on 01/29/2005 11:26:42 AM PST by Houmatt (America's own Holocaust: Abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Republican in CA

Are you an attorney?


67 posted on 01/29/2005 11:28:42 AM PST by He Rides A White Horse (Go Eagles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: He Rides A White Horse
"Supply and demand--reduce the number of feeding troughs, and the pigs have to go elsewhere to find food."
 
Well said!

68 posted on 01/29/2005 11:39:33 AM PST by Allosaurs_r_us (Idaho Carnivores for Conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

After I stopped laughing!


69 posted on 01/30/2005 12:53:08 AM PST by SirLurkedalot (I'm back...with NEW and IMPROVED knuckle-dragging action.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson