backtop


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

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.
http://www.bunnomatic.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6ho...

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.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki