babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » McNuggets -- "hazardous and detrimental"

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: McNuggets -- "hazardous and detrimental"
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 23 February 2003 06:10 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
a new lawsuit:

quote:
alleges that McDonalds promoted its Chicken McNuggets, fish and chicken sandwiches, fries and hamburgers as being healthy when researchers, and even the company's own nutritional division in France, warned otherwise.

From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 24 February 2003 10:26 AM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While McDonald's food is utter crap (except for the breakfasts when you're hung over), this is such a stupid lawsuit. I hope the judge dimisses it.

Personal responsibility is on the wane these days. I hope McDonalds sues these kids and adults back, in the very least for being stupid.

"fee hungry legal profession" ha!


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 10:40 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is this any more ridiculous that lawsuits against cigarette companies for hiding the truth about the harmfulness of their products?
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 24 February 2003 10:50 AM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I hope it goes through and McDonald's is found responsible. Wouldn't it be something if the producers of all this crap that's so bad for us were made to tell us exactly how bad it is at the time that we purchase it? Or if they were ordered to make it less bad for us? Or better yet, if they were just made to stop producing it altogether?

quote:
Personal responsibility is on the wane these days.

Personal responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the McDonald's execs etc. too, no?


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 10:50 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ho hum. Once again, the sole target of all this legal opportunism is ONE fast food restaurant out of many. What a surprise that it's McDonald's!

Here's some more greedy people suing McDonalds, this time over a bagel that allegedly destroyed a man's teeth, and was responsible for the breakdown of his marriage:

http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/mcds/usnationalap040203.html

It should be patently obvious to everyone that these are cashgrabs, and nothing more. If you feel like launching a frivolous lawsuit, you might as well sue the company with the deepest pockets, right?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 24 February 2003 10:56 AM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is this any more ridiculous that lawsuits against cigarette companies for hiding the truth about the harmfulness of their products?

Absolutley and without a doubt. Tobacco contains a very physically addictive substance (which you can still quit though). Believe it or not, there are still beneficial nutrients in McDonald's food, because it is food(albeit crappy) and not tobacco, which has 0 goodness about it. And it's not even like alcohol, where your disposition changes.

In addition, there are ten of millions who enjoy these products in moderation and have no 'health effects'. I would venture that the ill health of the plaintiff's is due to parents whose children do not exercise, eat poorly to begin with and watch to much tv/play too many video games.

Would everyone be happy if McD's slapped a sticker on their food saying "Eating this everyday will you a wheezing fat-ass who bathes with a rag on stick".? That smacks of parent-warning stickers on CD's! If you didn't know that McD's was less than healthy, and eating it more often than not will turn your butt huge, you are STUPID and deserve whatever's coming to you frankly.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 24 February 2003 11:10 AM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Personal responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the McDonald's execs etc. too, no?

Their personal responsibility is their own. As offcers of their company, they ensure government regulations. If you have a beef (pun intended) take it up with the government.

On the flipside, what about when you go out for any other food. Most restaurant food is fatter than usual, and higher in sugar.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 24 February 2003 11:15 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
the point of the lawsuit is much the same as tobacco manufacturer lawsuits,

from the original BBC story, the judge's ruling:

quote:
pointed out the possibility of a case to prove that additives in fast food meant there were risks in eating it that consumers were not aware of.

it's about additives that consumers don't know about. that's why this argument about people making informed choices to go to mickey d's is irrelevant. they aren't telling us what's in the mcnuggets.


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 11:21 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Most restaurant food is fatter than usual, and higher in sugar.

Yes, and they certainly don't bother putting it on the menu. McDonalds has available nutritional monographs on their products, listing fat, calories, carbs, serving sizes, etc. How many other restaurants do that?

How many of the other restaurants that serve fatty or sweetened food, and don't tell you, are named in this lawsuit?

quote:
Is this any more ridiculous that lawsuits against cigarette companies for hiding the truth about the harmfulness of their products?

Yes. They were deliberately misleading about the harmful additives in their product. McDonalds fries potatoes in hot oil while you watch. You can actually see the employee take a salt shaker the size of a soup can and salt your fries with it. You can watch as they flip your burger on a hot griddle, grease spattering up as they do. Now you're gonna come back and say "How could I know?? I thought that creamy stuff oozing out the sides of my double Big Mac was healthfood!"?

Sorry. I know some people don't like McDonalds, and would like nothing better than to see them suffer, but you can't make hay with this nonsense; you'll need to find another way, like not giving them your money and watching them financially wither away.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 11:38 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And it's not even like alcohol, where your disposition changes.

Hmmm. I notice almost immediate changes in the disposition of my son after eating fast food -- which, I might point out, is a rare occurance.

Might it also be that the filing of lawsuits is an effective (but not necessarily) efficient way to get a message out against an organization that is such an effective "user" of media?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 11:43 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Might it also be that the filing of lawsuits is an effective (but not necessarily) efficient way to get a message out against an organization that is such an effective "user" of media?

Interesting take, but I think that most people see these lawsuits for what they are. Rather than making people think "OMG, there might be Carageenan Gum in my fries", they think "fatass greedy bastards suing McDonalds... again".

quote:
pointed out the possibility of a case to prove that additives in fast food meant there were risks in eating it that consumers were not aware of.

Hmm. I'm not aware of any other restaurants under a similar obligation. I don't know what Cultures puts in it's ranch dressing, for example. That said, if it's a commonplace food additive then it doesn't really matter. There are all kinds of stabilizers, emulsifiers, thickeners, etc., added by the food industry - to all kinds of food, not just McDonalds. Making McDonalds "liable" for this and not everyone else would be absurd.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 24 February 2003 11:49 AM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hmmm. I notice almost immediate changes in the disposition of my son after eating fast food -- which, I might point out, is a rare occurance.

You support the filing of a lawsuit against the company whose products you feed your son?

quote:
Might it also be that the filing of lawsuits is an effective (but not necessarily) efficient way to get a message out against an organization that is such an effective "user" of media?

For some things but not this. This is a disgrace that uses resources that could be used elsewhere, and reinforces the hopes and dreams of shiftless losers and ambulance chasers everywhere.

Public opinion is not on the plaintiff's sides. When hearing this news, people everywhere say a collective 'Duh! You thought it was healthy?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 24 February 2003 11:53 AM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are all kinds of stabilizers, emulsifiers, thickeners, etc., added by the food industry - to all kinds of food, not just McDonalds. Making McDonalds "liable" for this and not everyone else would be absurd.

Perhaps this case would set a precedent, then, and we'd all be better off because of it. Just because other places do it, doesn't make it okay.

Wishful thinking, likely, but still possible.

I think that the force with which McDonald's advertises and their omnipresence opens them up to more scrutiny than other chains and restaurants. And if they're adding chemicals to what people think is just normal food and not telling consumers about it, then they're liable for the effects those chemicals. You can't very well make an informed choice if pertinent information is kept from you. I'd say that the presence of chemical additives in your "burger" constitutes pertinent information.

[ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 11:53 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You support the filing of a lawsuit against the company whose products you feed your son?

I said "fast food," not McDonald's. I've never taken him there. Nor have I sought to be a party in the suit. What others choose to do is up to them.

As I said, the use of suits in this manner aren't necessarily efficient. However, we are now discussing the issue, aren't we?

You mean to tell me that advertising executives aren't money grabbing, too?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 24 February 2003 12:05 PM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I said "fast food," not McDonald's. I've never taken him there. Nor have I sought to be a party in the suit. What others choose to do is up to them.

I assumed, and received my comuppance.

quote:
As I said, the use of suits in this manner aren't necessarily efficient. However, we are now discussing the issue, aren't we?

No, we're discussing the uselessness of this lawsuit, and the stupidly of the perps.

quote:
You mean to tell me that advertising executives aren't money grabbing, too?

Sure I do, but it's irrevelant to this conversation.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 12:12 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Perhaps this case would set a precedent, then, and we'd all be better off because of it. Just because other places do it, doesn't make it okay.

For the purposes of this lawsuit, it effectively does.

For example, TBHQ, a stabilizer found in a variety of different foods, is also found in some McDonald's products. If you intend to sue them for adding TBHQ and not telling you then you need to demonstrate that it's done you harm. How are you going to do that if it's found in your luncheon meat, your bread, canned soups, coffee creamer, etc.? How can you single out one company as the source of your "ills"?

To look at it another way: if there were nicotine and addictive agents in bottled water, chips, pasta, salad dressing and fruit, would we have seen big lawsuits against tobacco companies?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 24 February 2003 12:31 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Perhaps this case would set a precedent, then, and we'd all be better off because of it.

It might set a precedent, and we might not like the precedent it sets. It could very well open up all restaurants, including your favorite neighborhood diner, to expensive lawsuits if they fail to clearly post the ingredients to everything they serve you. This in turn, is going to drive up the cost of insurance for restaurant operators. Collateral damage of taking down McD's might take out a whole lot of independent and small businesses.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 24 February 2003 12:33 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the chemical additive can be proven to have ill effects when consumed in any considerable quantity, then maybe a more effective suit would be one filed against the producers of the chemical, than one filed against McD's.

If the claimants in this suit are able to prove that the only source of these additives in their diets is McD's, however, the presence of such additives in other foods is irrelevant. We still don't know what additives they're talking about, or who the claimants are, and what the circumstances of their illness(es) were/are.

We've got to start somewhere.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 24 February 2003 12:43 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It could very well open up all restaurants, including your favorite neighborhood diner, to expensive lawsuits if they fail to clearly post the ingredients to everything they serve you.

It's more likely that it would simply necessitate a new policy for the food industry, whereby ingredients (including chemical additives--and not just "color" or "artificial flavour") and information regarding their potential health effects be clearly listed and/or readily available to inquisitive consumers. Or maybe they'll just find that some of these things are not fit for human consumption and discontinue their use.

As in the case of the woman who sued over the too-hot coffee, once a case like this goes through, similar, subsequent suits are kinda null and void because of the amount of publicity around the first one. People are supposed to have learned from the example, or something. (Could someone with some real legal training help me out, this is not a very nuanced explanation...)

Also, after that case, McD's (and all the others) started printing their cups etc. with "caution - contents may be hot", making the consumer responsible for his/her own safety. They would probably just implement a similar warning system for the effects of food additives--if the suit is successful.

[ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 12:43 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
How can you single out one company as the source of your "ills"?

If it is the source of some of one's ills, and can be proven as such, then it's in fact quite fair game. Isn't this how the common law evolves -- by people trying cases?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 12:54 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm no lawyer, but it's my understanding that if dozens of companies use an additive in their product, you eat many of these products, then go on to claim that only one company is responsible for your "ills" then you'll be laughed out of court if you cannot demonstrate exactly how one company's additive harmed you while the other companies' didn't.

It's like working in a bar where people smoke. If you develop lung cancer, you *may* have a valid case against your workplace, but you couldn't single out ONE smoking client as the cause of your cancer.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 12:56 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd like to see McDonald's use that defense: "We know the stuff is awful, but don't hold us at all liable because we're not the only profit-mongering fast-food maker that did it to the plantiffs."
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 01:01 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, as ridiculous as it sounds, it's what keeps you from being able to sue Buick for making a machine that emits toxic gases.

More to the point though, these lawsuits, and the ambulance chasers who mount them, have yet to actually show that any of the additives in McDonald's food are actually in and of themselves harmful. It's not enough to say "these fries have XYZ in them and you didn't put that on the package". You need to show that XYZ is, in some way, harmful, and that it harmed you.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 24 February 2003 01:05 PM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd like to see McDonald's use that defense: "We know the stuff is awful, but don't hold us at all liable because we're not the only profit-mongering fast-food maker that did it to the plantiffs."

I'd rather McDonalds say,

"If you think our food is tasty, please buy more. If you think it is healthy, well, you are an idiot. And not once did Grimace and The Hamburglar roll up to your home and make you buy our fully legal products.

P.S. Some of you should get off the couch and jog or something."


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 02:19 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As I've said before, I'd happily endorse a law forcing the use of warning stickers on gluttons.

**Warning!** Given the opportunity, this person will eat far more calories than they intend to burn through exercise. To avoid risk of frivolous lawsuit, deny this person service.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 02:25 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How far are you willing to extend that practice?
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 24 February 2003 02:26 PM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
**Warning!** Given the opportunity, this person will eat far more calories than they intend to burn through exercise. To avoid risk of frivolous lawsuit, deny this person service.

LOL!


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 02:27 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
How far are you willing to extend that practice?

Until every person who is unwilling to accept responsibility for their choices has a huge sticker on their ass. BTW, did I mention they'd be huge? And orange.

[ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 02:30 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So, it's "gluttons who want to blame others," and not gluttons in general then?
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 02:36 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
...and not gluttons in general then?

Correct. I allow adults to make any choices they're willing to live with (and which don't directly harm others), such as getting tattoos on their face, joining cults, or marrying Kid Rock.
As long as they deal with the fallout. But don't get a big swastika tattooed on your cheek and then complain that you're "being discriminated against" in the job market. Don't join the Scientologists and then complain because L. Ron Hubbard is a bad science fiction author. Don't marry Kid Rock and then complain that your children look like little rednecks. Make your choice. Live with your choice.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 24 February 2003 02:39 PM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Paxamillion, now you're just being silly!

As absurd as this sticker business is, as a business owner, I would seriously consider it, if the inmates ran the asylum (if they don't run it already).

As far as the actual sticker, make the lettering reflective (so people don't drive into these targets at nights) and in braille as to not exclude the blind. The blind need protection too!


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 24 February 2003 02:46 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
P.S. Some of you should get off the couch and jog or something."

warning: typing all day on babble may be more dangerous than eating at mcdonalds

the only reason that mcdonalds has all those nutrition charts and salads and veggie burgers in india, etc, is *through* lawsuits/pressure like this.

why should we let up now that they're finally making quarterly losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars?

singling out one fast food outlets makes all the other fast food outlets afraid (as with the greenpeace/stop Esso boycott, take the Tiger out of your tank, and how BP is reacting, heck, they've changed their logo to a sunflower and are calling themselves beyond petroleum),

or look how subway has oriented its entire brand around being healthy.


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 02:59 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Correct. I allow adults to make any choices they're willing to live with (and which don't directly harm others), such as getting tattoos on their face, joining cults, or marrying Kid Rock.

So, kids should sue their parents for taking them to McDonald's then?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 24 February 2003 03:03 PM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
warning: typing all day on babble may be more dangerous than eating at mcdonalds

Too late! I'm suing! babble may me large!

quote:
the only reason that mcdonalds has all those nutrition charts and salads and veggie burgers in india, etc, is *through* lawsuits/pressure like this.

India has almost 1 billion people. It is a world unlike our own (I'm half Indian) but with people just like you and me. I believe the whole brouhaha came about when McD's added beef fat to the fries and didn't tell anyone. They got caught and punished. Consumer activism at it's best.

quote:
why should we let up now that they're finally making quarterly losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars?

The demise of McDonalds would be victory for cuisine but not for people. Many, many, many people work at McDonalds, and an untold many work for their suppliers. Not to mention the million's of investors around the world.

quote:
singling out one fast food outlets makes all the other fast food outlets afraid (as with the greenpeace/stop Esso boycott, take the Tiger out of your tank, and how BP is reacting, heck, they've changed their logo to a sunflower and are calling themselves beyond petroleum)

2 points:

1) Other fast food outlets are cheering. Anything to knock McD's out of 1st place is great.

2) How is this logo change/McD's connected.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 03:09 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, kids should sue their parents for taking them to McDonald's then?

They're welcome to try. Adults take full responsibility for what they feed their kids.

quote:
the only reason that mcdonalds has all those nutrition charts and salads and veggie burgers in india, etc, is *through* lawsuits/pressure like this.

And the fact that other restaurants don't have nutrition charts, and this doesn't arouse the ire of activists, suggests it's not about the nutrition at all.

quote:
why should we let up now that they're finally making quarterly losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars?

Because this is supposed to be about healthy food, right? Unless you're going to be the first to admit that it's all about punishing a restaurant you don't like (and discard your credibility in the process)?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca