Print 140 comment(s) - last by Shadowmaster62.. on Dec 21 at 8:32 AM

Are the toys included with McDonald's fat-ladened Happy Meals illegal under consumer protection laws? A class action lawsuit claims so.  (Source: Strange Cosmos)

The issue is made more complex by the fact that govenrment farm subsidies are helping keep junk food artificially cheap, and those subsidies are unlikely to go away anytime soon. Thus the government is already intervening to promote cheap junk food.  (Source: ChattahBox)
"Happy Meals" not so happy for children's health, say plaintiffs

America's obesity epidemic is more severe than that of any other large industrialized nation.  In America today, over 30 percent of adults and 15 percent of children are obese.  More so than any other medical issue, obesity is crippling the U.S. economy and health care system.

On Wednesday, a landmark lawsuit was filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest accusing McDonald's, America's largest fast food chain, of luring children into unhealthy eating with toys in "Happy Meals".

Monet Parham, a mother of two in Sacramento, was one of the sponsoring plaintiffs in the case and comments, "I object to the fact that McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat."

Remember Joe Camel?

The case is similar in some regards to the class action lawsuits filed against Camel Cigarettes over its use of the "Joe Camel" cartoon character.  While eating junk food isn't illegal for children like smoking cigarettes is, many physicians say the risks associated with obesity are as bad as smoking cigarettes or worse.  It should be noted that Camel Cigarettes was forced to discontinue its iconic character and settle its lawsuits out of court for a tidy sum.

Could the Happy Meal be next?

Lawyers for the CSPI say that McDonald's is both harming children by luring children with the toys and harming its competitors which no longer offer similar prizes with their kids meals.  States Steve Gardner, CSPI litigation director, "Every time McDonald's markets a Happy Meal directly to a young child, it exploits a child's developmental vulnerability and violates several states' consumer protection laws, including the California Unfair Competition Law."

The group was also critical of McDonald's claims that it had made its Happy Meals "healthier" by adding Apple Dippers or low-fat milk as options.  They point out that fries and pop are still the most commonly served options for the Happy Meal.

CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson states, "McDonald's congratulates itself for meals that are hypothetically possible, though it knows very well that it's mostly selling burgers or chicken nuggets, fries, and sodas to very young children."

McDonald's spokesperson Bridget Coffing refused to directly comment on the lawsuit, but defended the happy meals, stating, "We are proud of our Happy Meals and intend to vigorously defend our brand, our reputation and our food.  We are confident that parents understand and appreciate that Happy Meals are a fun treat, with quality, right-sized food choices for their children that can fit into a balanced diet."

What the Suit Means to American's Health, The Fast Food Business

The idea of government courts policing American's eating habits and replacing the role of proper parenting is controversial.  And its important to note that government intervention is partly responsible for the 
success of fast food, as farm subsidies have reduced the cost of beef and corn to much lower levels than Europe and Asia.

For McDonald's, the suit couldn't have come at a much worse time.  The company was just hit by a massive data loss, in which it may have lost as many as 13 million customers' names and email addresses.  And over the last couple years the company's image has been damaged by the nonfiction best-seller/documentary 
Supersize Me.

The case is significant for other fast food companies, as well.  Depending on its outcome, other competitors, like Taco Bell, which does often offer toys with kids meals, may have to eliminate them as well.  And if the practice is condoned by the court, competitors who aren't offering toys may feel compelled to keep up.

In other words, this super-size case may ultimately be the prelude to the U.S. government either practicing a hands-off policy as Americans' waists swell; or opting to try to force consumers to healthier options, via either court rulings or legislation.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Seriously lady?
By wannabemedontu on 12/16/2010 3:29:35 PM , Rating: 5
"getting into your kids heads"?

Are the kids forcing the parents at gunpoint to drive them to McDonald's and then purchase the food for them? Be a parent and say no fatso. Good grief.

This has got to be as dumb as the old lady + hot coffee law suit. Why are these people allowed to have kids?

RE: Seriously lady?
By rburnham on 12/16/2010 3:31:33 PM , Rating: 5
Because we have no "Having Kids Test". Damn shame, too.

RE: Seriously lady?
By nolisi on 12/16/2010 5:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm tickled pink by the idea that many of those defending McDonalds seem to not be in favor of government controlling what McDonalds can advertise and sell, no matter how much potential for harm there is, but they seem to be in favor of government controlling who can have kids. Seems like a mild double standard to me...

FYI, I'm in favor of people controlling what they eat. But I'm also in favor of truth/disclosure in advertising and people being well informed about what they eat. I don't see it as just McDonalds responsibility, nor just parents responsibility, but everyones responsibility...

RE: Seriously lady?
By JackQW on 12/16/2010 8:51:31 PM , Rating: 4
Truth in advertising is good. I think everyone agrees on that.

All they're trying to do is head 'em off at the pass.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

... and the root source of prevention in this case is common sense, of which these parents have none.

I'm sure are already restricted by the 'No Kids For You' act of the People's Republic of America, since they have the constitution overriding authority to restrict everything else -- like McD's selling.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Totally on 12/17/2010 1:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
No, not really. Right to run a business vs. Abusing the privilege of being a parent.

RE: Seriously lady?
By knutjb on 12/17/2010 5:23:21 AM , Rating: 5
They are required to provide nutrition info That was oh so tough to find.
McDonalds has to provide this by law. Parents have the choice and some are choosing poorly by claiming victim status.

Look at Starbucks Who plans on suing them? I know a lot of kids who spend more time there than at the golden arches.

RE: Seriously lady?
By invidious on 12/17/2010 9:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
People with no sense or humor shouldn't be allowed to procreate either.

RE: Seriously lady?
By The Raven on 12/17/2010 10:09:59 AM , Rating: 4
It's not that anyone is defending McD's. Freedom is being defended here. I personally hate McD's. The food is crap, I'm sick of seeing their commercials, and I hate their stupid clown (although I do like his charity and he was very nice to me when he stopped by a location in Perryville, MO).

My kid has gone to McD's and played on the playplace and got a happy meal and felt like he had just gone to Disneyland. Ever since he has a magnatism to the place... I wonder why...

Though my wife has taken him maybe 5 times in his 4 years, I have never taken him. And it is soley because I hate the place. He asks to go whenever we see the arches (but not so much lately), but we tell him "no." I take him to places with play places and toys and what not, so we are not denying him a childhood or anything lol.

But with all that said, I like the fact that there are McD's out there for when I want to take him out for a quick treat. If they disappeared and were replaced with Arby's I'd be much happier, but I can appreciate the place a little and it seems that there are people who appreciate it more than me.

If these people want to get fat, unhealthy, and raise their insurance rates and chances of dying early... go right ahead. You are a terrible parent if you do that to your kids, but if anyone loves them I'm guessing it is you and here in the US where we believe in the power of freedom, I have to trust your judgement. Otherwise we will have to ban abortion, circumcision, TV, and any thing else that the elite think is bad. We have freedom to do stupid things like waste time with vidya games and commenting on DT articles and even buy our kids meals that come with cheap toys from China. If you don't like it; don't do it. Period.

RE: Seriously lady?
By JakLee on 12/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously lady?
By just4U on 12/17/2010 9:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, ... I'll defend MCD's. Why not?

As a child in the 70s we were bombarded by comercials from all the big fastfood places of the time. I am sure many remember the Ronald Mcdonald comercials with hamburgler and the the colorful charachters they had.. Sure, we wanted to go. But it didn't make us fat.

Probably because we were alot more physically active back then as compared to the children of today. Falls to the parents to make sure their children are living a healthy (AND ACTIVE) lifestyle.. not Mcdonalds.

It should be noted to that overall their "fast food" isn't unhealthy for you.. atleast not in moderation. But that goes without saying as a "HAPPY MEAL" isn't going way overboard on the calories chart anyway.

This is just another stupid lawsuit trying to post the blame where it doesn't belong.. Total BS.

RE: Seriously lady?
By SandmanWN on 12/18/2010 3:47:30 AM , Rating: 3
This is just another stupid lawsuit trying to post the blame where it doesn't belong.. Total BS.

McD's should counter sue the parents for buying their kids into obesity. One stupid lawsuit practically begs for another.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Skywalker123 on 12/18/2010 11:25:30 AM , Rating: 3
Although I defend their right to sell it,McDonalds food is pure garbage.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Ristogod on 12/16/2010 3:56:41 PM , Rating: 5
I love it when people blame everyone else for them being a worthless parent. Take this woman out the field, pop her in the back of the head, put the kids on a treadmill and order a Big Mac.

RE: Seriously lady?
By BadAcid on 12/16/2010 4:23:14 PM , Rating: 4
The irony in all this is that McDonald's runs a charity to help families stick together in the face of disease and such.

For the perpetrators of this lawsuit to blame McDonald's for their kids getting fat just shows their inability or complete lack of real desire to maintain families properly themselves.

I hope the judge forces them to enter a Ronald McDonald house to, hopefully, cure them of their hands-off approach to parenting and help the kids overcome obesity.

Poetic justice.

RE: Seriously lady?
By FaaR on 12/16/2010 7:11:11 PM , Rating: 1
I love how you baselessly jump to the conclusion that this woman must be a bad parent. It sure must be awesome to be a multinational supercorporation in america when they have imbeciles such as you voluntarily charging to its defense, without they having to lift a finger.

Don't you feel dirty, being at the beck and call of a multinational, and not even getting paid for it?

Advertising junk food to kids really screws with their heads. This is a known fact, scientifically proven. McD and similar corporate entities don't give a crap about the kiddies that eat at their so-called "restaurants", or their health (other than on a superficial level, so the junk they serve isn't actually toxic or contaminated); IF they cared they wouldn't sell crap loaded to the brim with fat, sugar and salt to children.

This actually is a really big issue, but sticking your head in the sand and blaming everything on the parent won't help you. On the other hand, what goes around comes around. Karma and all that. Enjoy the shitty society you're contributing to, matey... More power to the junk food corps is good in your book, eh?

RE: Seriously lady?
By enlil242 on 12/16/2010 8:00:48 PM , Rating: 4
It absolutley is the parents fault. I grew up under the same umbrella as these kids, and had more to choose. McD's, BK, Jack in the Box, Burger Chef, Hot n Now. My parents probably took me there once a month. I'm not a fat slob and I thank them for that.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Looey on 12/16/2010 8:47:06 PM , Rating: 5
I think you're full of BS. It's the responsibility of every parent to feed their kids. The mother of these kids is simply a bad mother. It's easy to look at your kids and see the fat and do what's right. She is trying to place the blame on others so she doesn't look like what she is, a bad parent. The judge in this case should have her investigated for child abuse.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Warwulf on 12/17/2010 3:14:32 AM , Rating: 5
In order for your arguement to hold water, it assumes that all parents are nincompoops and incapable of doing anything other than catering to every whim of their child. Kids don't care if it's a Happy Meal or not... They just want the goddamn toy. Take them to Toys R Us, for crying out loud.

Eventually, someone has to step up and be the adult here... Take responsibility for the way you raise your children.

RE: Seriously lady?
By HueyD on 12/17/2010 9:05:52 AM , Rating: 5
It's not about "fault" its about who is responsible. The parents need to take responsibility for what their kids eat, watch on TV, who they hang around with, who they date... you know, be a PARENT.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Yames on 12/17/2010 11:55:13 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly, kids don't drive themselves to McD's. That lady needs to learn to tell her kids NO.

RE: Seriously lady?
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 9:12:26 AM , Rating: 5
It's absolutely a parents problem. Everything for kids is marketed as the greatest thing in the world. Even if it wasn't marketed to them at all, kids would see or smell it and say "I WANT!!!". It's a parents job to determine what is good for their kids and act appropriately.

Why do they sell it and make billions? Because the parents buy it. What you advocate is a world where the government decides for everyone what is good for them.

If you don't like McDonalds, do what I do and don't buy it. But a parent has the right to buy it and give it to their child if they so choose. But to then not like the results of their poor decisions for their child and want to blame others is the true problem.

Just like automakers selling lots of trucks. They do so because people want them. Advertising only suggests you buy something. If you're to mentally incompetent to not know what is good for you, then you are the one to blame. Not them for getting you to fall for what they said. Now when 4-5 year olds start having jobs again buying things on their own, you can make a case.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Redwin on 12/17/2010 9:56:36 AM , Rating: 5
I think I agree with Fit here.

Should the gov require the company to post nutrition facts so parents have the information to make a good decision for their kids? Probably so.

Should the gov just go ahead and make the decision for the parents? HELL NO.

I drive by 5 McDonalds every day on the way home from work. I stopped and tried the McRib once a couple weeks ago (Spoiler: Not as great as everyone claims, lol). Was first and last time I'd been there in years. Its not like they are forcing you (or your kids) into their restaurant.

RE: Seriously lady?
By The Raven on 12/17/2010 11:46:17 AM , Rating: 1
Advertising junk food to kids really screws with their heads

How do you think McD's reaches the kids? Umm... the parents took them there? Or the parents let them watch too much TV where McD's advertises.

Look since the food is bad for people, let's just ban it altogether, right? I mean that is what you people are saying. You are saying that people can't make smart decisions, or shouldn't be able to do stupid things.

RE: Seriously lady?
By just4U on 12/17/2010 9:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
When I was still in school we had a nutritionist come in and go over alot about food. She also brought up Mcdonalds and her thoughts on it have stuck with me to this day..

She was quite ok with the BIG MAC. Saying how it covered all the essential food groups (if in a round about way) but also went on to say that to eat such things constantly would not be healthy (calorie intake and all that) especially if we were not very active.

She didn't see fast food places as evil at all.. and had quite a good perspective on how they fit into our daily lives and eating habits.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Skywalker123 on 12/18/2010 11:29:22 AM , Rating: 2
Many nutritionists are full of it. They'll tell you that whole grain breads are good for diabetics. Wrong. and the Big Mac has a big white bread bun and is full of fat.

RE: Seriously lady?
By tmouse on 12/20/2010 7:56:00 AM , Rating: 2
And you know more?

Get over it, unless you’re stupid you should know ALL hamburgers are made of meat and fat. McDonalds is probably not much better or worse in that regard. Most places over cook burgers anyways so a lot of the fat is drained out, that’s why they advertise "weight before cooking". Most of the fat in fast food burgers comes from margarine or mayonnaise. The ketchup is also loaded with salt and sugar. Soda, hopefully is self-explanatory. Fries are just pure carbohydrates, and there is very little difference between "whole" grains and white bread. The "whole" grain provides some additional fiber , which is good and if there are actually any whole grains in it can slow absorption of some carbohydrate, fat and salt are just about the same. You could eat most of your meals in a McDonald’s and not get fat, BUT you would have to choose carefully and balance it with additional vegetables (even the salads are mostly lettuce with no nutritional value). You will get just as fat eating similar foods at home.

Not a McDonald’s fan personally, I rarely eat fast food but every once in a while it will not kill the vast majority of people. As it has been said MANY times parents do not have to take their kids there, they have healthier choices if they do and they shouldn’t allow their kids to sit around all day playing video games or watching TV.

RE: Seriously lady?
By sp33dklz on 12/17/2010 2:28:59 PM , Rating: 1
I absolutely love that people are obese, as I choose not to be. I am going into the medical field and it is comforting that there will be plenty of illness and disease to take care of. Kudos McDonalds, for my job security.


RE: Seriously lady?
By Schrag4 on 12/17/2010 2:50:37 PM , Rating: 4
Kudos McDonalds, for my job security.

You totally missed the point here. You meant "Kudos, crappy parents, for my job security." I'll go ahead and beat a dead horse here by pointing out that my kids always want to go to McD also, but we almost never take them there (two or three times a year). Did McD decide that our family won't go? No. As parents we decided.

RE: Seriously lady?
By smackababy on 12/16/2010 4:29:48 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, the hot coffee law suit wasn't about her being stupid and spilling the coffee. It was the fact that McDonald's purchased sub par coffee and heated it to unreasonably high temperatures in order to produce the scent all coffee drinkers know and love.

Also, she didn't win millions of dollars as most people believe either. Appeals brought the number down to something much more reasonable (like medical and court costs plus a few thousand).

What still remains is the idiocy of this law suit. The fact that parents cannot "control" their kids enough to feed them food not from a Happy Meal is just one of the many reasons there should be regulations on who can have kids in this country.

If I wanted McDonald's when I was a child and my mother denied it, that was the end of it. If I put up a fuss, I got a smack and ate whatever she cooked with a sore bottom.

RE: Seriously lady?
By smackababy on 12/16/2010 4:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I just recalled a study I saw concerning the portion sizes, not limited to fast food, of what we eat compared to what was commonplace 10 years ago. The sizes have increased quite a bit. What used to be the regular is now the small or children and what was once the large is now the regular.

Technically, McDonald's could do something to improve this, but at a severe loss of business as Wendy's and Burger King will still offer larger portions resulting in more "value" for the customers.

RE: Seriously lady?
By SpinCircle on 12/16/2010 5:41:33 PM , Rating: 4
Totally agree with what you're saying... though I do have to wonder what your mom was cooking with a sore bottom... :P

Oh, and those kids aren't fat, they're 'fluffy'

RE: Seriously lady?
By Omega215D on 12/16/2010 7:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
My family was different. When we wanted to go to McDonald's our parents would take us if possible (unless we were grounded then all bets are off) and it was like a weekly to 3 times a week thing. Fast forward to me being an adult and I am in no way fat nor am I in poor health. Good cholesterol is quite high, bad cholesterol is less than average and blood pressure is looking great. Probably due to the way I was being raised. We weren't allowed to be lazy and if we sat in front of the TV for more than 3 hours we pretty much were sent outside to play, do chores or just plain move around.

I still eat it 3 times a week as it's cheap and quick during lunch break but I also maintain the exercise regimen and switch up the meal plan (there are 3 meals per day so 3 times a week actually isn't bad).

RE: Seriously lady?
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 8:59:32 AM , Rating: 2
No one is saying don't give your kids McDonalds. Just that parents shouldn't whine because the food isn't the healthiest. They don't say that their food is healthy, just delicious (something I disagree with but others disagree with me).

Can you be healthy and still eat McDonalds? Yes. But you'll have to do more than sit on your ass all day.

But in the next few years depending how the political tides roll, we'll potentially see more of this BS. They just passed a food "safety" bill that lets the FDA control school bake sales and other crap. A lady who helped draft the bill admitted on a show I listen to that if she'd had her way, she'd have banned them altogether. Because you know the Constitution gives the federal government that power.

Why does the government care about what you eat? Well as they get more involved in the health care system, unhealthy people cost them more money. So they want to control what we eat so there's less potential for us to get fat.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Solandri on 12/16/2010 10:07:22 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, the hot coffee law suit wasn't about her being stupid and spilling the coffee. It was the fact that McDonald's purchased sub par coffee and heated it to unreasonably high temperatures in order to produce the scent all coffee drinkers know and love.

Actually, the coffee wasn't too hot. That was one of the brilliant pieces of misinformation created by her lawyers. They went around and surveyed the coffee temperature at a bunch of nearby restaurants, found the lowest temperature, and reported that as "other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures". Notice how their phrasing makes it sound like the typical establishment sells coffee at the lower temperature, when in fact the one selling it at the temperature they were referencing probably had the machine set wrong. In contrast, someone seeking to present facts would've given the temperatures of the coffee machines at all the restaurants nearby. Which they couldn't do because it would torpedo their case and show that McDonalds' coffee wasn't set any higher than coffee at other restaurants.

Bunn (the manufacturer of most of the coffee equipment sold to restaurants) recommends their machines be set at the 175-185 F temperature range the McDonalds' coffee machine was set at. This is still their recommended temperature setting, and is just 5 degrees off from the 180-190 F standard McDonalds was advised to use corporate-wide at the time.

The case is a textbook example of how a lawyer can use tricky wording, misdirection, lying by omission, and elicit emotional responses from jurors (most of their argument centered on the horrific burns the client suffered) to arrive at a decision not based on the facts of the case.

Also, she didn't win millions of dollars as most people believe either. Appeals brought the number down to something much more reasonable (like medical and court costs plus a few thousand).

The final adjusted award was $640,000, before they settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. So it's almost certainly into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

RE: Seriously lady?
By mcnabney on 12/17/2010 9:40:30 AM , Rating: 1
Actually the coffee was too hot and it was deliberately set that way by their corporate office. Your own remarks identify that.

The McDonalds policy was to produce coffee outside of the machine's specification. So to the judge/jury the company took specific action to make their product less safe despite the coffee machine manufactures recommended settings. That is why McDonalds lost in court. Obviously the original number was idiotically high, but McDonalds was clearly at fault here.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Lakku on 12/18/2010 5:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
I believe you're the one being the lawyer now, not giving us the full story to get your view or point across. You left out the part of the plaintiff's case where they also set out to prove that 190 degrees was far too hot to be serving coffee, regardless of what was the suggested setting by corporate or Bunn.

McDonald's argued during the trial that customers wanted it that hot because they intended to consume it at work or back at home, wherever their destination was. This, despite the fact they had over 700 hundred complaints from 1982 to 1992 of coffee burning or scalding the mouth, throat, or if spilled, the skin. There was medical evidence of third degree burns in some of the cases, so McDonald's knew there was a problem. They also knew that most customers did in fact intended to drink it on the way to work, by way of their own research.

Lastly, and this is where you part comes in, coffee generally is served well below 190 degrees at other establishments. This is important, because the case revolved around McDonald's knowing it was too hot, and that other places did not serve it at this temp. They proved with home coffee makers that coffee from many of them was 135 to 140 or so degrees (though this may not be the case with all coffee makers, it is irrelevant to the facts here).

The case, which resulted in a woman suffering third degree burns and requiring 2 years of medical work, did in fact have merit, mostly based on the fact McDonald's knew it was too hot, and ignored that fact. Ignored it even after 700 burn complaints.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Targon on 12/18/2010 8:47:33 AM , Rating: 2
Just for the sake of argument, just because most people are stupid does not mean that we should be happy with stupidity. Just because other places set the temperature lower does not make it CORRECT that it is at that temperature.

You make coffee or hot chocolate at home, and in general, it starts by being too hot, so you test it, then wait, or add something to cool it, then test again, or wait. That is normal for hot beverages!

Or, if the average traffic light is set to 2 minutes per cycle and the light takes 2 minutes and 15 seconds, that does not mean you should run the light because the light you are at is set differently. People need to understand that you have to pay attention to the world around them, and to respond to differences between what they expect and what is really there.

Basically, people need to wake up and pay attention to the world around them, and I don't mean just reading the newspaper or watching the news on TV.

From your perspective, if people continually drive over the grass on an empty lot(instead of staying on the road), if the owner of the property builds a wall to keep it from happening and drivers get hurt because they run their car into the wall, it suddenly is the fault of the owner of the property that the driver was stupid and didn't pay attention.

Stupidity should never be rewarded, and honestly, if people would stop protecting stupid people from doing stupid things, then we would have fewer stupid people in the world and we would have fewer problems. If you break into a public building and fall down a set of stairs in the dark, you should NOT have the right to sue because there was no exit sign or warnings that can be read in the dark warning about the stairs. If you try to rob someone, and a police officer warns you to stop or he/she will fire, failure to stop means you DESERVE to be shot, with no potential for excessive force lawsuits.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Dr of crap on 12/17/2010 9:26:58 AM , Rating: 5
You got it. We used to get smacked for causing a fuss. And that was the end of it.

Now if you smack your kid the cops are called, the kids are questioned about abuse from their parents.
Good parenting means saying NO and meaning NO. Parents now hear a little whining and then GIVE IN.

FAT kids, spoiled kids, kids that think they deserve everthing, you know the kids of today - come from BAD PARENTING!

RE: Seriously lady?
By bighairycamel on 12/17/2010 5:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
Where are the oompa loompas? I think this post calls for a musical number.

RE: Seriously lady?
By FaceMaster on 12/17/2010 11:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
I happened to be reading about this case only last night, where did you read about them using poorer quality coffee beans that need to be heated further? I have seen no evidence of that anywhere, and I feel you may just be making it up.

Also, the final figure isn't known, but it is likely to be far, far more than her medical fees (Which are around the $20,000 mark, while 'the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000'. So yeah, they might have been $20,000 + legal fees or what ever, but somehow I doubt that.)

Please reply, I'd like to see what you have to say about this.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Nutzo on 12/16/2010 4:31:41 PM , Rating: 3
Take a good look at the picture with the 2 kids. They are NOT eating a happy meal, unless McDonald now has an option to "Supersize" them. That's a large drink and a large box of fries siting on the tray.

RE: Seriously lady?
By bjacobson on 12/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously lady?
By Luckyspin on 12/16/2010 4:46:49 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously though. Read about the Hot Coffee suit. McDonalds was to blame for that BIG TIME.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Quadrillity on 12/16/2010 5:14:02 PM , Rating: 1
after reading that link, I feel like I have learned something today. Thanks :)

RE: Seriously lady?
By hr824 on 12/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously lady?
By Solandri on 12/16/2010 10:40:46 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, the info on that site is the victim's lawyer's perspective of the case, and does not represent the true facts. For some real facts:

The coffee machines are supposed to be set that hot. It's the temperature recommended by Bunn, the manufacturer of most of the coffee machines used in U.S. restaurants. Still is in fact. 175-185 F is what they recommend today.

The "other establishments" which served it at a lower temperature referred to the lowest temperature found when they surveyed other restaurants. Not the mean, not the median, but the lowest.

After the verdict, McDonalds did indeed lower the temperature of their coffee machines. But too many people complained about it cooling too quickly and they raised it again. If you go check McDonalds now, it's probably in the 175-185 range recommended by Bunn.

The 700 prior incidents of burns from spilled coffee represented some 8 billion cups of coffee sold in 11 years. That's an incident rate of 1 in 11 million. The average fatality rate from driving is about 1.5 per 100 million miles. So if you drive 6 miles round trip to buy a cup of coffee at McDonalds, you are about as likely to die in a car accident as you are to spill the coffee on yourself. If the coffee was unsafe enough to sue over, then we need to pull all the cars off the road right now and sue every auto manufacturer for selling such a dangerous product.

About the only thing the site reports without bias is that McDonalds was grossly unsympathetic towards the woman's injuries. In post-interviews with some of the jurors, that was in fact one of the main reasons they decided in her favor. They reported that McDonalds' lawyers came across as insensitive, heartless jerks. So they figured since someone had to pay for her medical bills it might as well be McDonalds.

RE: Seriously lady?
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 9:05:58 AM , Rating: 2
I had an entire pot of steaming hot coffee spilled on me as a child. Luckily I was wearing pants.

And stop disproving people who just want to blame others for their stupid acts. If you put hot coffee between your legs while driving a car and you're wearing a skirt, a facepalm moment is sure to happen eventually.

RE: Seriously lady?
By YashBudini on 12/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously lady?
By Dr of crap on 12/17/2010 9:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
So in your world everything should come with a warning label since you don't know how it's going to be used by everyone.
"Gee, I didn't know if I poured gas on my leg and dropped a cigarette on it, I will get burned!"

She, the lady with the coffee, should have realized SHE did the wrong thing. Being burned was the out come.

Can I sue for damages if I open a can of beans, drip some liquid on the floor as I'm moving to the stove, slip on this liquid and cut my thumb off as I fall to the floor, and burn my hand on the stove as I'm trying to keep from falling!
And yes that IS the same as what this lady did.
This should have NEVER been brought to a court setting.
This is the same as good parenting. The fact that she thought that spilling the coffee was in some way not fully her fault is just crazy.
We need a common sense filter on the court system.

Why do I need a "warning coffee is hot" label on the coffee cup?
DUH, it's coffee. If it wasn't hot they wouldn't sell much of it.
A good cup of coffee should be made at 190 or hotter to make it good!

RE: Seriously lady?
By YashBudini on 12/17/2010 10:48:39 PM , Rating: 1
Your inability to grasp what I said (versus your impression) and inability to understand how the law works is not my problem.

Reading comprehension courses are available in your area.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Skywalker123 on 12/16/2010 7:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you don't know the facts behind the MacDonald's hot coffee suit.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Hiawa23 on 12/16/2010 8:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
WTF, is this a joke? If parents are stuffing their kids with fatty foods, it's on them not Mcd's. I eat at Wendys a couple of times a week. I order the 2 for $4.99, which is a Blt cobb salad, without blue cheese, & a chilli, & a cup of water. Last time checked you can also get low fatty foods at Mcd's, so if you are stuffing yourself full of fatty foods instead of ordering good low cal food, it's on you, hell we all enjoy a hamburger and a fry from time to time, but you got to use some common sense. Fast Food restaurants offer a healthy menu too. It's about choices.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Lerianis on 12/17/2010 1:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the reasoning (not that there is much reason in it) is that McDonald's is 'not making their food as healthy as they could'.
Frankly, unless they stop selling fried foods like hamburgers and Chicken Nuggets, they are not going to be able to please those bastards who are pushing them towards 'healthier choices'.

Basically, the people who are filing these lawsuits and pushing this bullplop want us to go to eating salads and nothing but salads all the time.

RE: Seriously lady?
By spread on 12/16/2010 11:07:52 PM , Rating: 1
This has got to be as dumb as the old lady + hot coffee law suit.

That lawsuit had merit.

The problem was that McDonalds was not serving coffee fit for human consumption. They would serve it near boiling point because customers want to drink it "later" even though their own studies show most people try to consume it right away.

This is what happened, the lady tried to drink the coffee and by doing so burned her mouth and then dropped the coffee on her lap requiring skin grafts and medical treatment. She approached McDonalds for the costs of said treatment, they denied she sued for more and won.

More info:

RE: Seriously lady?
By xrodney on 12/17/2010 4:21:19 AM , Rating: 1
Evidently you don't know much about children and human mentality at all.
Point is that they are promoting junk food and not healthy ones, making it better deal and its really easy to elude child with toys and also there is most of food offered junk with only very few healthy options.

Why don't they promote good food ? Because they don't care about us, just about how much money they make and from junk food they make more.

I think in some countries companies providing food are already forced to avoid some junk ingredients in food and make at least some part of their offering healthy.

As for me personally I will welcome any way they are forced to sell as many healthy food as possible as often its really hard to make choice between 30 types of junk and 2 healthy foods as none want to eat same thing 5 times a day.

RE: Seriously lady?
By HueyD on 12/17/2010 9:02:31 AM , Rating: 2
Why McDonalds??? Burger King, Wendy's, Five Guy's, etc... their all foods that have high fat content. They should investigate what their kids are eating at the public schools, I would bet my paycheck the fat content at the public schools it about the same as the food at any of these fast food joints.

This seems to be the norm, its always "their" fault. People need to take responsibility for their actions or in-action in this case.

RE: Seriously lady?
By xrodney on 12/20/2010 5:14:19 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps because McDonald is biggest.
Outside of US McDonald is most known and offers most junk food.
Also its not just about amount of fat but also other stuff.
And quite contrary, food in school is controlled.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Lerianis on 12/17/2010 2:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
xrodney, I will point this out slowly and maybe it will sink in: McDONALDS FOOD IS NO MORE NOR LESS HEALTHY THAN STUFF MADE AT HOME!

Got that! Seriously, their food is no more nor less healthy today than fried foods made at HOME! Which a lot of families make at home today!

It's time to stop bashing on McDonald's and stop bashing on fried foods in general. With all due respect, I ate them a LOT when I went off my self-imposed diet during the summer as a child.
Was I overweight? Hell no, I always tested as being underweight!
Even during school, McDonald's food was usually my 'one meal a day if that'.

So, the problem is not the food.... the problem is that parents have been terrified into not letting their children out of their homes with the 'stranger danger' and 'pedophile/pedosexual threat'.
Therefore, their children get fat!

RE: Seriously lady?
By Helbore on 12/17/2010 4:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
Evidently you don't know much about children and human mentality at all.

You're arguing that some people are too stupid or incompetant to make their own decisions, so the government should make them for them instead. That's not a world I'd want to live in.

Besides, your whole argument falls apart on the basis that most parents are capable of making good judgments and are able to control their children. Children stamp their feet and demand outrageous things ALL THE TIME! Evidently, you don't know much aobut children, or you'd be aware of this fact. It ain't just about McDonalds, its about anything they want to have. A good parent knows how to tell their kid "no."

Because in the end, that's all they need to do. The kid can't get in the car, drive themselves to McDs and buy the food themselves. They're a kid! They can't drive! They have no money! It's the parents who choose to do it.

As for me personally I will welcome any way they are forced to sell as many healthy food as possible as often its really hard to make choice between 30 types of junk and 2 healthy foods as none want to eat same thing 5 times a day.

People like you need to be kept out of government (I hope you're not in such a position). Who are you to force such decisions on people? As an adult, I have a right to eat unhealthy foods if I want. What gives you the right to decide that I can't and should only eat healthy foods?

It's not like I currently can't eat healthy foods. I just don't go to McDonalds if I'm after a healthy meal. There are other places for that. The thing is, its my choice to decide which place I want to go to and how often. It is not and should not be the government's.

RE: Seriously lady?
By Fritzr on 12/17/2010 11:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
Fast food menus vary according to market. The last time I was in a McDonalds, the fried chicken with rice was the most popular item. They sell very few burgers & fries at that location. It was outside US and the local McDo sold what the customers wanted.

In India they do not sell meat...again McDonalds

In US they do sell hamburgers, french fries & soda pop, because that is what US customers expect to find. They can change the menu and offer other items, but they have much less control when it comes to telling the customer what they are allowed to order.

Even KFC in US has started to put their fried chicken & picnic food items to the side to offer processed chicken product sandwiches as the items that they prefer to promote.

By tastyratz on 12/16/2010 3:36:20 PM , Rating: 5
Are you effing kidding me? Bad parents blame mcdonalds because they don't choose the healthy alternative for their child to eat? The most chosen option is the fatty foods because the clearly irresponsible parents aren't capable of telling their kids no to begin with!

I hope mcdonalds countersues. This is like a lawsuit against ford because they provide a higher speed alternative to walking for drunks.

Have some god damn accountability and stop with this every child is special spoiled brat blameless absent parenting BULLSHIT.

But hey let me tell you how I really feel...

By ClownPuncher on 12/16/2010 3:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
You mean my kids can't live a healthy life if their diet is 100% Krispy Kream? Brb, I gotta call the government to get them to make my household descisions because I'm far too much of an incompetent, pussy fart of a parent.

By tastyratz on 12/16/2010 4:02:00 PM , Rating: 5
I swear to god Someone needs to take everyone on the suit and put them in a room, then BEAT the parentardation out of them with a pillowcase filled with the "healthy alternatives" at McDonalds.

Can a judge please just sentence that? I REALLY REALLY hope the judge denies them and just goes OFF on a rant about parental responsibility.

By ClownPuncher on 12/16/2010 4:46:34 PM , Rating: 5
Did you just coin "parentardation"? If so, you deserve a medal.

By tastyratz on 12/16/2010 8:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
If my new word catches on, remember dailytech as the start to my fame. I will honor you all during the acceptance speech and as my entry is entered into the new websters dictionary next, coming right after "crunk"

By ThisSpaceForRent on 12/16/2010 11:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
A Google search shows that your use is the only one that Google has found on the web. You've done something unique on the web, which is pretty epic these days.

By Dr of crap on 12/17/2010 9:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
That is a great word.
Has made me smiling everytime I've said it in the last few minutes.
I've got to remember it.

IT's so the truth about those lazy parents!!


By davmat787 on 12/18/2010 5:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
Awesomest new word I have heard in awhile, already logged into that great dictionary in my head.

So how does a new word get ratified to Webster's or some other accredited organization?

By Flunk on 12/16/2010 4:36:04 PM , Rating: 3
I had a similar experience. I'm sure those kids don't eat at McDonalds every day either, you have to pay attention to what you eat and feed your kids at home. Fresh, healthy, home-cooked food is always best for you.

If you eat constantly and pig out on junk food you'll get fat, that's how it works. There is no miracle solution: eat less, move more!

By AlexWade on 12/16/2010 6:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
This is America! And for many, the American dream is to make a lot of money without doing any work.

This issue is....
By LordSojar on 12/16/2010 3:38:15 PM , Rating: 5
A). Convoluted
B). Getting really old, really fast
C). Retarded
D). All of the above.

The correct answer is D.

This is a twisted mess, because on one side of the equation, American obesity is epidemic. Add to it that children love toys and scream and whine about not getting that new toy they saw on the McDonald's commercial until their parents can't take it anymore, and cave in, and you have a pretty huge mess on your hands.

On the flip side, this is a capitalist society, and if parents don't like it, they can choose not to go to McDonalds. The toys are also sold separately, so getting a toy without getting the fattening food is a very viable (and recommended option).

This can really be boiled down to parents either not being responsible or parents just being complete idiots. McDonalds should advertise the fact that you can buy the toys separately more aggressively.

Parents need to take responsibility for the things they feed their children, and parents and schools need to stress the idea of eating healthy (and delicious) foods over the crap they call food at fast food places.

The other fundamental change that needs to happen: American families need to stay the hell away from fast food in general. I see so few mothers that cook dinner anymore (or fathers!)... Why is this? The sense of family is so degraded in America, that you can't even really get the family to sit down for a homecooked, wholesome meal anymore.

And no... buying a frozen meal and heating it up in the microwave or oven isn't home cooked folks... making meals from whole food ingredients from the butcher and produce sections of your grocery is what I mean. That's the other side of this apparently 3 sided coin... mom's and dad's are too lazy or busy to cook a real meal anymore.

Oh, and let me finish by pointing out that many families actually can't afford the ingredients required to make a good, wholesome, home cooked meal. The ingredients that are better for you, the unprocessed, raw, wholesome ingredients are typically much more expensive than their processed counterparts. So... families that don't have a large disposable income buy what they can afford, even if said food is far less nutritional and nourishing than the food that is more expensive, literally because they can't afford it. If we are going to subsidize foods, then we should subsidize foods that are actually HEALTHY.

RE: This issue is....
By Funksultan on 12/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: This issue is....
By Ghost42 on 12/16/2010 4:09:42 PM , Rating: 1
What? Accurate facts, and no sensationalism? Ha! Yeah right.. It's a Jason Mick article.

RE: This issue is....
By Nutzo on 12/16/2010 4:29:10 PM , Rating: 4
Oh, and let me finish by pointing out that many families actually can't afford the ingredients required to make a good, wholesome, home cooked meal.

That's nonsense. You don't need to go to the local upscale market to buy overpriced fancy organic ingredients to make a wholesome meal.
Rice and pasta can be bought in bulk very cheaply. Old standbys like spaghetti, or a simple stir-fry of chicken & vegetables over rice or noodles.

I can usually feed my family of 3 with a home cooked meal for less than the cost of a single fast food combo meal. Of course it takes planning, hard work and shopping for what’s on sale, and I’m sure that’s not what the people in the lawsuit want to do.

If they win this suit, I’m sure they will go out and celebrate at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

I wonder if I can sue the maker of M&M's, since I eat too many due to them temping me with the "green" charactor.

RE: This issue is....
By Flunk on 12/16/2010 5:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
I second that, home cooking is much less expensive and if you buy creatively you can eat for days on the price of one McDonalds meal.

RE: This issue is....
By Skywalker123 on 12/16/2010 7:42:09 PM , Rating: 3
When did noodles become a wholesome meal?

RE: This issue is....
By Solandri on 12/16/2010 10:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
They're a helluva lot more wholesome than a burger, fries, nuggets, and a soft drink.

RE: This issue is....
By LordSojar on 12/17/2010 6:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
That's nonsense. You don't need to go to the local upscale market to buy overpriced fancy organic ingredients to make a wholesome meal.

Did I mention organic food? Did I mention an upscale market? No and no.

Wholesome != organic

Wholesome = not processed or precooked (which typically means fried or baked with heavy amounts of oil and breading of some kind)

Whole foods are expensive, because they are the foods that have the least subsidies, which is a big issue here in the US. We subsidize all the wrong foods.

RE: This issue is....
By tmouse on 12/20/2010 8:20:16 AM , Rating: 2
This has VERY little to do with subsidies. Corn and wheat are the MOST heavily subsidized foods in the US and they are not in and of themselves bad or evil. As for processed vs unprocessed, mostly you are correct, however I have seen MANY families whose “home cooked meals” are FAR more loaded with salt and fat and portion control can be way out of line. The problem with most (but not all) frozen meals is they contain a lot of sugar and sodium salts as well as being over cooked (which destroys the nutritional value, however I have also seen many home cooks who over cook also) purely for legal protections. There is very little wrong with frozen vegetables. For most families they do offer value as well as nutrition (price is just as important). Canned is loaded with salt and fresh is a better but only in local seasons, after processing and transport many imported vegetables can actually be less nutritional than frozen just from natural degradation.

RE: This issue is....
By TSS on 12/16/2010 7:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny that with every arguement i read about this issue, none of them are "just stop fuckin eating".

Just stop eating. You're stomach says it's had it's fill, there's no need to still cram that hamburger in there. Still got half your plate full of food? Throw it away and order less next time, appearantly you don't need as much. Still eating just because it feels so good? Then you're a junkie who needs to stop stuffing his face and get some help.

It's impossible there's an epidemic of people who have an unquenshable thirst for food. Just learn some god damn self control.

On the subject of the children: There's no reason your child needs a large shake, a large fries and a big mac. Your kids do not know what they want. First you listen to what they want, then you tell them what they can have.

Oh and if it does go bad, if at any time you think: "xxx has made my kids fat", just correct that to " i let xxx make my kids fat".

Obesity isn't an epidemic. The neglecting/dodging of responsibilty, now that's an epidemic of epic proportions.

RE: This issue is....
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 12/20/2010 2:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah.. pretty much proven too. There's been lots of studies that simply imply "stop eating" when your stomach is full. It's all about calorie count.. and not what the food is actually made of. But the nanny state won't have that and argue that MikeyD's made their child fat... not the Golden Corrale all-you-can-cram-down-your-throat for $10 buffett followed up by 6+ hours on the PS3 and another 2+ hours on facebook.

Michelle Obama is pushing to eat more salads. FACT: Happy Meal with burger, fries, and a sprite: 580 calories. Salad with Blue Cheese: 360.. but you're still freak'n hungry! Salad without dressing (LOL), yeah.. good luck!!!

Since the clown and a toy apparently "lure" children to happy meals (and not the $1 value menu that appeals to adults) I want to raise awareness to the current administration on other luring characters that have affected my eating disorder(s):

+ M & M's peanut guys (the red peanut is turning me into a commie)
+ Cracker Jack's sailor kid (Don't ask, Don't Tell.. right?)
+ Coco Puff's Cuckoo bird (It's teaching me that its OK to feed chocolate to animals)
+ Orville Redenbacker (Being old shouldn't be so cool).
+ Little Debbie (makes me feel like a pedephile when I say I'm eating a little debbie).

I think all packaging moving forward should always feature a "Turd" icon if the contents are questionable (like the "Parental Advisory" icon). I mean.. who would by a product that's certified "Turd?"

Thanks You.

I think a more interesting article would..
By goku on 12/16/2010 3:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think it would be more interesting for there to be an article talking about the demarcation point where Americans have absolved themselves of any personal responsibility for just about anything in their lives. It's almost as if "americans" (actually people in general) are so "overworked" (mostly their own fault) that they just want to give up on life and have things done for them, but still be allowed to piss and moan about it.

It's very sad to see this state of affairs but I think the new reality is that our lives are going to be increasingly controlled by others whether we like it or not because a large segment of the population simply doesn't have the energy to be responsible individuals.

RE: I think a more interesting article would..
By Ammohunt on 12/16/2010 3:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
We all know how well that worked out for circa 1930's Germany perhaps thats what it will take again to get the human race back on course.

RE: I think a more interesting article would..
By morphologia on 12/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: I think a more interesting article would..
By rcc on 12/16/2010 5:26:02 PM , Rating: 1
As opposed to the "get everyone on welfare plan and when there is no one left to foot the bill they can eat each other" plan??

RE: I think a more interesting article would..
By bodar on 12/16/2010 5:55:31 PM , Rating: 4
Let's be honest, they both have the same plan: screw over the entire country to benefit their personal agendas and make themselves and their cronies rich, while blaming every problem, real or imagined, on the other party.

And we fall for it every time.

By rcc on 12/17/2010 4:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
While there is a lot of truth in that, I'd rather be screwed over while having a decent economy and a job, than screwed over and on welfare.

But I realize a lot of people see it differently. : )

It's legit.
By Smilin on 12/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: It's legit.
By rcc on 12/16/2010 5:31:52 PM , Rating: 5
I'd have to disagree. Kid's being annoying is largely the parents fault too.

Every time I seen children screaming around a restaurant I have an almost overwhelming urge to spank their parents.

RE: It's legit.
By dgingeri on 12/16/2010 5:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
They should award the plaintif. The judgement should be: McDonalds execs are forced to listen to a choir of children going, "please! please can we go to mcdonalds! please can I have fries." continuously until they pass out from exhaustion. That's what the punishment should be because that's what they are inflicting on parents.

The proper response to this is "I said NO and I mean it! Shut up about it or you're getting 3 swats from my belt when we get home!" That got me to shut up when I was a kid. I'm a little overweight, but not too bad, and I have no health problems because of that little extra weight.

RE: It's legit.
By roykahn on 12/17/2010 7:58:08 AM , Rating: 2
This is your mother. Shut up and get on the treadmill, fatty!

Just a thought.
By rburnham on 12/16/2010 3:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
When my brother and I were kids, McDonald's was a treat that we got maybe once per month, not every day. Also, we tended to get the chicken nugget Happy Meals, not the burgers. Our parents also made us play outside quite often, even when we eventually had video games in the house.

As children we were always skinny. People pointing the finger at McDonald's really need to reassess the way they raise their kids. Maybe fast food should remain a once-in-a-while sort of thing, and NOT a regular part of a child's diet.

Just a thought.

RE: Just a thought.
By Spivonious on 12/16/2010 3:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. It was a treat for us when I was growing up as well.

As far as the lawsuit goes, kids can't drive, so unless they live close to a McDonalds and have enough money to buy food there, it's not McDonalds fault that they can't stop eating.

Those kids in the photo are disgusting, and their parents should be jailed.

RE: Just a thought.
By Entz on 12/16/2010 5:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah same here.

McDonalds has been around for what 55+ years. Never made any kids fat when I was growing up.

The problem is society has turned into a bunch of lazy bums who don't raise there kids. Instead let them sit in-front of the TV for 6 hours a day, eat crap processed foods, never exercise and wonder why they are fat (or crazy).

Oh well its never the parents fault, always the evil corporations that are mind controlling there kids and forcing them to take them to McDonalds..

Fat is Flavor...
By EricMartello on 12/17/2010 11:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
I like McDonald's, in fact, this article is making me want on of those Angus burgers. If you haven't tried one yet, you're missing out. It's $4 for a "restaurant quality" burger that is ready in minutes!

This lawsuit is largely a joke. The people claiming McDonalds is "luring" kids are ignoring the fact that THEY as parents are responsible for their kids...and who is paying for the happy meals? The kids or the parents?

Places like McDonald's are not the reason we have little fatties. The reason is that the parents are probably just as lazy/fat/stupid as the kids they're raising, and the probably don't know how to tell their kid NO.

When I was younger, my parents made me eat "healthy" foods like veggies and home cooking and dessert was a reward for doing so, and served in limited quantities. When my parents took me out to eat, it was once in a while and usually for some special occasion. It was not a regular activity. Kids are more often than now a reflection of their parents...and while it's no secret that the USA is full of fat pigs, the blame is squarely on the individual (or parent) for that problem.

RE: Fat is Flavor...
By Lerianis on 12/18/2010 11:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
They are also missing the fact that, as I have said in other threads, the food that McDonald's gives is no more nor less 'healthy' than food made at home for many 100's of years now.

RE: Fat is Flavor...
By tmouse on 12/20/2010 8:39:34 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you however it should be noted I had an Angus burger in the city (closer to $6) that was fairly nasty but the one I had at home was very good and cheaper(location, location, location). I think it's clear from the overwhelming responses most here also agree this is a parental and personal responsibility issue not "evil, corporate conspiracy" to keep Ronald McDonald Houses open and full. I hope they can find a thinking jury and not a bunch of fools with a soft place for weebley wobblies.

By Lerianis on 12/17/2010 1:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
McDonald's food is no more nor less healthy than homemade food, and usually healthier than that, to bring things down to brass tacks.

Not to mention that McDonald's has tried to placate their critics by going to healthier oils (fried food is still fried food, but fried food is not necessarily unhealthy), putting veggies/fruits in Happy Meals, etc.

Personally, I ate a LOT of Happy Meals even during elementary school as my one meal a day, and I was not fat. But that might have been BECAUSE I was only eating one meal a day and sometimes, less than that during school in order to stay thin.

I also have to acknowledge that in high school, I was referred to a doctor for being possibly anorexic. My doctor put it on the line: either I ate more than I did, or he was going to put me on IV nutrients to bulk me up a little, since I was so thin you could count my ribs!

By Skywalker123 on 12/18/2010 11:38:21 AM , Rating: 2
to reiterate, McDonalds food is garbage.

By Lerianis on 12/18/2010 11:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
To reiterate to you, it is no more garbage than any of the food served in most homes in America that fathers/mothers make themselves and have made for many years.

The problem is that children are, in some cases, overindulging AND that they are not getting enough exercise because their parents are afraid to let them out of their homes over the overblown pedophile/pedosexual 'danger'.

Personal responsibility- where is it?
By 91TTZ on 12/16/2010 3:28:34 PM , Rating: 4
Everybody knows that fast food isn't good for you.

Where is the responsibility of the parents or the people buying the food? Kids want all kinds of stuff that is bad for them, it's up to the parents not to buy it for them.

Our law system is broken.

By Motoman on 12/16/2010 3:29:31 PM , Rating: 4
Take a guess as to who's responsible for deciding what to feed your children. Is it...McDonalds? Nope. Is it the guvernment? Nope. Is it the TV? Nope.

As wacky as this is going to sound, PARENTS are responsible for deciding what to feed their children. If your kid is fat, it's YOUR GD FAULT. Not anybody else's. Certainly not McD's, who I can assure you is not sneaking into your home when you're not looking and force feeding your kid french fries. If your kid eats too much deep-fried's because YOU are feeding it to him.

Michelin Man...
By Gzus666 on 12/16/2010 10:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
That kid looks like him, that is all.

RE: Michelin Man...
By delphinus100 on 12/17/2010 10:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
Michelin Boy?

The Lawsuit has NOTHING to do with Food.
By zendude on 12/17/2010 7:59:35 AM , Rating: 2
The lawsuit has EVERYTHING to do with money.

The U.S. legal system needs a serious overhaul to prevent these money-grabbing and nuisance lawsuits. In the end, lawyers end up with 90% of all the money. Furthermore, these lawsuits tie up court systems, preventing the resolution of real and important legal cases.

I hope these lawyers end up paying all of McDonald's court costs. It would be nice, but it will never happen, if they are required to repay all of the state's court costs for handling this nuisance lawsuit.

By tmouse on 12/20/2010 8:23:17 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it has happened but it rarely gets the publicity. Neither side wants it to.

By rubbahbandman on 12/18/2010 4:32:30 AM , Rating: 1
my no bullshit plan is simple:

no trans fat whatsoever.
no high fructose corn syrup.

done. you remove those things from your diet and you will lose weight. this comes from a guy with <10% body fat and i don't force myself to eat perfect.

RE: solution
By Skywalker123 on 12/18/2010 11:47:21 AM , Rating: 2
No you won't lose weight by eliminating transfat and corn syrup. The only formula that works is calories out exceed calories in.

Cracker Jack
By Ammohunt on 12/16/2010 3:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
This is why i plan on filing a lawsuit against Cracker Jack! The want to obtain all those tiny magnifying glasses and micro books caused me to become obese!

Sue the Parents
By Reinman on 12/16/2010 3:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
This is so pathetic, patents suing coz there making their kids obese. Yah right i'm a parent myself and i watch my son what too eat. I know that kids meal not healthy but how often do you feed ur kids with this meal. Wake up parents, you are in control of what ur kids to eat. You should also educate them on types of food.
What are u feeding them at home anyway. Are u feeding them healthy food or microwavable food. Perhaps we should sue the parents as well for serving unhealthy food at home. Just a thought.

I remember when....
By The0ne on 12/16/2010 3:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
Parents actually did parenting, meaning they had parenting skills and sound mind of what's right and wrong. It's strange how things have changed. Beck loving parents, my coworker here, teaching their kids the ins and outs of morality is funny as hell to see. MMA instructors teaching young budding kids the honorable ways of martial arts while at the same time going out to bars to pick fights just so they could break some body parts and have "fun."

Yea, have to love parenting nowadays! If they can't do it, why not someone else? I mean it's ONLY your kid so why care so much right? *roll eyes*

By viperpa33s on 12/16/2010 3:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
I love parents who can't take responsibility over there own kids. Makes you wonder who wears the pants in the family. Part of being a parent is taking control over your kids and telling them NO! Kids want the world, doesn't mean you give it to them.

"A person goes and eats a Big Mac everyday. This same person knows that eating a Big Mac everyday is bad for you. This person ends up being overweight, has high blood pressure, and cholesterol. Then this person turns around and sues Mcdonalds because he ate a Big Mac everyday and made him fat."

No one forced this person to eat a Big Mac everyday, he did it with his own free will. So why sue a company when you can't take responsibility for your own actions?

What the hell?
By Sazabi19 on 12/16/2010 3:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
There is no personal accountability anymore. This is absolutely rediculous, all the people that are in the class action should automatically be sued back for a frivlous suit, have their kids taken, and the case be dropped. And think, these people will soon be running stuff for us all. I'm only 21 but I think I am one of the few in my generation that has any sense anymore.

I facking swear...
By Stuka on 12/16/2010 3:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
I want buy a candy bar without a Surgeon General's warning on it. I want to buy a BD player with a manual that doesn't include a list of things you SHOULDN'T insert into it. I want to watch a car commercial that doesn't say "Professional driver, closed course" as they show it crossing a dry lake bed. Most of all I don't want to know that the possible side effects of your herpes medication include vaginal bleeding, diarrhea, and vomiting, while I'm eating my lunch.

LEWIS BLACK for President!

And, Happy Holidays.

That is all.

By HrilL on 12/16/2010 4:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
This is completely ridiculous. Feeding your kids fast food 3-4 times a week is not healthy for anyone. Parents need be responsible and cook healthy meals for their kids.

What is with so many Americans believing that they don't have to take any responsibility for their actions? Being obese no ones fault but your own.

The sad fact is that parents are obese themselves and tend to have obese kids. They learn these horrible eating habits from their parents or are forced to eat a poor diets because that is what their parents provide.

It's time for...
By Tegrat on 12/16/2010 4:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
these companies to start counter suing for wasting their time and our taxpayers money. FFS. Doesn't anyone take responsibility anymore?

My theory
By morphologia on 12/16/2010 4:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
Those who are capable of being rational, responsible, effective so.
Those who can't...blame someone else and sue them for it.

If I hear about one more sanctimonious failed parent blaming everyone but themselves for their children's problems, I'm moving to Svalbard and never coming back.

I think I will file my own lawsuit
By sethenon on 12/16/2010 4:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
against this woman and her laywers for trying to dictate to my family what we can and can't buy. Anyone else want in? We could make it a class action.

I used to think we lived in a free country. I'm not so sure anymore.

By dgingeri on 12/16/2010 5:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
My sister is a waitress at a large chain of US sit down restaurants. She's got so much seniority and skill at her job, she is a designated wait staff "trainer". So, she has very little free time to cook and take care of the kids. She works about 45-50 hours a week. He husband is a store manager at this same chain of restaurants, and works 60-70 hours a week. She has 3 kids, ages 11, 15, and 19, who eat fast food 5-10 times a week, and get delivered pizza and/or pasta 3-4 times a week.

Before you jump to conclusions, all three are healthy weight. My 19 year old nephew happens to be more than a little underweight at 120lbs at 5'8". My 15 year old niece is 5' and 120lbs, but she's also a competitive Tae Kwon Do fighter with a red belt. She's quite fit and strong, and far from overweight as he weigh would suggest. (Remember muscle weighs more than fat.) My 11 year old nephew is also quite fit, and has abs I envy.

The difference isn't genetics. My sister, despite her heavy work week, pushes her kids to get involved in school and community activities. The boys are limited to 10 hours of video games and TV each. She keeps a running total each week. All other times, they need to be doing something active and out of the house, or their homework. (Recently, she's been complaining that the school is sending them home with too much homework that is impacting her 11 year old's ability to be active. Darn lazy teachers.) She also instills in them the need to eat enough to feel satisfied and no more.

The parents need to be held responsible for their kids getting fat. They need to instill in them the need to be active from a very early age. The parents have the choice to say "no" to their kids.

"Clean your plate" is a dangerous way to teach kids to eat, especially in this day and age. There should be leftovers, and kids should very rarely feel stuffed. They should feel it as uncomfortable, not pleasurable. (On a side note, I still feel a little guilty leaving food to be thrown away, but I push myself much of the time to eat only "just enough".)

This lawsuit is just a bunch of total garbage. It should be dismissed as having no merit.

By Jeremy87 on 12/16/2010 5:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
As a tourist in USA, and a "poor" student, I've really enjoyed the cheap McD visits.
In Europe, the prices are the same except in € instead of $, and the portions are a lot smaller. IIRC, drinks range from 0.4L to 0.75L, and the burgers look just sad in comparison.

Luckily my parents never really introduced me to the junk food world, so I only use them if I'm "on the road" and low on money.

Just get it over with
By adiposity on 12/16/2010 5:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
and sue the govt. for poor education. That's the source of all these lawsuits anyway: parents and children too stupid to know what's unhealthy.

ahh the insanity
By kleinma on 12/16/2010 6:22:18 PM , Rating: 1
Any kid wanting a happy meal can't go get one on their own... why are parents never to blame?

Shitty kids are created by shitty parents.

RE: ahh the insanity
By davmat787 on 12/18/2010 7:36:17 PM , Rating: 1
by kleinma on December 16, 2010 at 6:22 PM Any kid wanting a happy meal can't go get one on their own... why are parents never to blame? Shitty kids are created by shitty parents

Sure they do. Go sit in a McDonalds in an urban setting with residential areas closeby. See how many parents hand their kids a fiver to go get dinner.

Probably happens more than we think unfortunately. But this backs up your point too, just saying...

By raabscuttle on 12/16/2010 6:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, did the lawyers for the CSPI write this little propaganda piece for Daily Tech too? sheez!

Blaming everyone but ourselves
By xxsk8er101xx on 12/16/2010 7:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
With freedom comes great responsibility. If you can't handle the responsibility to be free then you deserve to be enslaved.

Absolutely Disgusting
By TheRealArdrid on 12/16/2010 7:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
What is wrong with the people in this country? It's disturbing to me that so many people seem to have an innate inability to properly parent their children. If you want your 5 year old not to weigh 200 lbs, how about getting off your lazy ass and cooking them some healthy meals for lunch and dinner. McDonald's didn't force this woman to buy their products and they absolutely should not be held responsible for piss poor parenting. The courts better throw this case out.

By rika13 on 12/16/2010 8:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is kids have NOTHING to do nowdays other than video games and tv. We idiotically say "go outside and do something" but there is NOTHING outside, most urban homes don't even have yards. Parks are nice, but many times they are not easily accessible or have very limited facilities for older children. The other problem is many lower income families have only one parent or have both parents working, so instead of cooking, they go to the local fast food joint (McDonald's just happens to be one people think of first) and force their kids into very bad eating patterns (eating when not hungry, eating everything, over-sized portions due to "not wanting them hungry later" etc.) which cause obesity with any food.

all I can hope for is....
By overlandpark4me on 12/16/2010 10:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
that they get a good judge and saddle their costs and attorneys fees on the losers that are wasting the courts time

By bernardl on 12/17/2010 12:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
Intended or not, the fundamental "value" of Mac Donald's for our societies is an education to consumerism.

So, in essence, this class action is a frontal attack to the very base of the Western society and should be called terrorism using recent usage of the term.

Forget about Al Qaida and their connections with our defense contractors, the real action is in that court room.


Interesting turn of events
By InternetGeek on 12/17/2010 1:03:35 AM , Rating: 2
"I object to the fact that the Reverend is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to think and do."


Typical Jackpot Justice
By Beenthere on 12/17/2010 2:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
The siren chasers always go to the money source even when their claims are baseless. They are sure to get millions from a sympathetic jury of brandead people who think it's McDonald's responsibility to educate parents to make smart choices for their family. Any lawyer who brings a frivolous case in the U.S should be disbarred IMO.

By v9s on 12/17/2010 4:38:00 AM , Rating: 2

Much of the interviewing press was happy to treat Monet Parham as a random (if oddly well-informed) California mom, but it didn’t take the blogosphere long to discover that she is apparently anything but random. Ira Stoll, who blogs at Future of Capitalism and used to put out the New York Times-tweaking, soon discovered (via a commenter) that she is in fact the same person as Monet Parham-Lee, who is a “regional program manager” on the state of California payroll for child nutrition matters. Specifically, she works on a federally funded program that campaigns to exhort people to eat their vegetables and that sort of thing. The comment: “Interestingly, her name has been scrubbed from the website of Champions for Change, the Network for a Healthy California. She has given numerous presentations and attended conferences on the importance of eating vegetables and whatnot. “She presents herself as an ordinary mother. She is not. She is an advocate, and an employee of a California agency tasked with advocating the eating of vegetables. To the extent that Monet Parham-Lee has EVER taken her daughter to a McDonald's, she should have known better.”

By wordsworm on 12/17/2010 7:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
I propose a class action suit against parents if obese children for being bad parents.

By FITCamaro on 12/17/2010 9:01:37 AM , Rating: 2
"McDonald's congratulates itself for meals that are hypothetically possible, though it knows very well that it's mostly selling burgers or chicken nuggets, fries, and sodas to very young children."

No they're selling burgers, chicken nuggets, fries, and sodas to PARENTS who GIVE them to their children.

What a JOKE!
By faster on 12/17/2010 10:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
The responsibility for what their kids eat lies with the parents. I don't let my kids eat McDonalds. They are not in charge I am in charge. They don't have their own money, I pay for their food. When consumers vote with their wallet, then the corporation will change or face extinction. What are we, unthinking mindless cattle? This does not belong in our court system. Corporations in the US need to be free to innovate. If your kid is fat, don;t let him eat at McDonalds. If your kid eats at McDonalds twice a month, he won't get fat. If he eats there 5 times per week, you are a bad parent.

Gimme a break!
By masamasa on 12/17/2010 4:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
Next they'll sue the cow for making them fat. Pathetic.

By YashBudini on 12/17/2010 10:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
He appears to be an excellent floatation device.

Another step
By diggernash on 12/18/2010 2:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
In Soviet America our workers are strong and healthy like Ox. They work many hours for the motherland, making her favorite sons much money. We do not let the parasites of pleasure or enjoyment stand in their way. They shall not be obese, I declare it.

Abort, Retry, Fail?
By davmat787 on 12/18/2010 5:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
How does one think on one hand abortion (so sorry to bring this up!) is ok because it is the "woman's body", then on the other think the gov should be allowed (via lawsuits or whatever) to tell one what is okay to ingest or not?

Major compile errors in my head, it hurts man!

From Worse to Worser
By Shadowmaster625 on 12/21/2010 8:32:30 AM , Rating: 2
I hate McDonalds as much as anyone with a brain. But if there is one thing worse than McDonalds, it is the nanny state. Jason already alluded that it is government subsidies that are largely responsible for the obesity epidemic. Even ignoring that obvious conundrum, it is still not a good precedent. Parents need to use the allure of a happy meal to EDUCATE their children about how the real world works; how they try every trick imaginable to get you to ingest their filth.

"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki