Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 The reason I think suits are acceptable is that they bait-and-switch. They pump their foods full of things and alter them and serve you something other than what you think you're buying. Pumping food full of corn syrup, for instance, only adds hidden, empty calories and addicts the palate, which is why they do this. Yet we can't sue them now for this deceptive practice? Gee, guess Congress is heavily invested in the Beef Industry, hm? On Friday, March 12, 2004, at 03:29 AM, wrote: > Message: 10 > Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:27:29 -0000 > " Denise " <pamperedveggie > Re: Beef Council Clout > > Although I despise fast-food restaurants and the fact that they serve > very unhealthy food, I have to support not allowing people to sue > these companies. Everyone has a choice to eat or not eat at fast food > and if you're overweight and don't excersise and eat like crap, then > it's not their fault that you have a higher rate of diseases. > > However, I've also heard the argument that Congress shouldn't decide > the type of lawsuits, the courts should decide. That is a very > legitimate argument and it makes me re-think my stance. BUT, it urks > me that people would waste the court's time, resources and everything > to pass the blame to anyone but themselves. > > Instead of discussing whether people could sue these companies, maybe > we should start discussing passing certain " health " laws. Obesity is > an epidemic in this country and it is going to create a strain on our > health system. Perhaps, like cigarette packages, there needs to be > federal labeling warning people of the risks. Not that it's going to > stop someone right away, but as the truth comes out, perhaps more & > more people will stop?????? > Of course it doesn't help that everytime a new strip mall is built, a > fast food joint is planted right there. Now they even " double up. " > Has anyone see the Taco Bell/KFC/Pizza Hut places? Yuck! > > And yes, this does show who pockets the Beef Council is in. > > Denise > " If I don't know what the fuck is going on, then how in hell can I tell you what the fuck is going on! " --Morley Safer - Co-editor of " 60 Minutes (while describing the Pentagon's on-going disinformation policy to PBS) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 If you find that a hidden ingredient was in a food, one that is detrimental to health, etc, then yes, you should be able to sue on that regard (such as the Hindu suits about the French fries.) However, suing just because a food is fattening or unhealthy is bullocks. It negates personal responsibility. As an adult, I can choose to eat fatty fast foods, or I can choose not to. I am responsible for my own choices. No one in their right mind should think that a fast food hamburger is healthy. The Stewarts <stews9 wrote: The reason I think suits are acceptable is that they bait-and-switch. They pump their foods full of things and alter them and serve you something other than what you think you're buying. Pumping food full of corn syrup, for instance, only adds hidden, empty calories and addicts the palate, which is why they do this. Yet we can't sue them now for this deceptive practice? Gee, guess Congress is heavily invested in the Beef Industry, hm? On Friday, March 12, 2004, at 03:29 AM, wrote: > Message: 10 > Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:27:29 -0000 > " Denise " <pamperedveggie > Re: Beef Council Clout > > Although I despise fast-food restaurants and the fact that they serve > very unhealthy food, I have to support not allowing people to sue > these companies. Everyone has a choice to eat or not eat at fast food > and if you're overweight and don't excersise and eat like crap, then > it's not their fault that you have a higher rate of diseases. > > However, I've also heard the argument that Congress shouldn't decide > the type of lawsuits, the courts should decide. That is a very > legitimate argument and it makes me re-think my stance. BUT, it urks > me that people would waste the court's time, resources and everything > to pass the blame to anyone but themselves. > > Instead of discussing whether people could sue these companies, maybe > we should start discussing passing certain " health " laws. Obesity is > an epidemic in this country and it is going to create a strain on our > health system. Perhaps, like cigarette packages, there needs to be > federal labeling warning people of the risks. Not that it's going to > stop someone right away, but as the truth comes out, perhaps more & > more people will stop?????? > Of course it doesn't help that everytime a new strip mall is built, a > fast food joint is planted right there. Now they even " double up. " > Has anyone see the Taco Bell/KFC/Pizza Hut places? Yuck! > > And yes, this does show who pockets the Beef Council is in. > > Denise > " If I don't know what the fuck is going on, then how in hell can I tell you what the fuck is going on! " --Morley Safer - Co-editor of " 60 Minutes (while describing the Pentagon's on-going disinformation policy to PBS) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 But people who many consider to be in their " right mind " do consider meat to be healthy. The Atkins craze certainly didn't help things. That isn't really Mc D's fault. Mc D's never claimed their burgers or their fries were healthy like subway claimed their sandwiches would help people lose weight. But, I'm pretty sure that Mc D's and Wendy's have advertised their salads as a healthy alternative to burgers and fries, even though the salads contain more fat. Isn't that deception worthy of sueing? , reptile grrl <reptilegoddess> wrote: > If you find that a hidden ingredient was in a food, one that is detrimental to health, etc, then yes, you should be able to sue on that regard (such as the Hindu suits about the French fries.) > > However, suing just because a food is fattening or unhealthy is bullocks. It negates personal responsibility. As an adult, I can choose to eat fatty fast foods, or I can choose not to. I am responsible for my own choices. No one in their right mind should think that a fast food hamburger is healthy. > > The Stewarts <stews9@c...> wrote: > The reason I think suits are acceptable is that they bait-and- switch. > They pump their foods full of things and alter them and serve you > something other than what you think you're buying. > > Pumping food full of corn syrup, for instance, only adds hidden, empty > calories and addicts the palate, which is why they do this. Yet we can't > sue them now for this deceptive practice? > > Gee, guess Congress is heavily invested in the Beef Industry, hm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 The eating of meat, in itself is not inherently unhealthy. Eating a grease-soaked hamburger, on the other hand, is well-known to not be healthy. While a lie about the health of their products might be worth suing over, that's not why people are suing. People are suing because eating McDonald's food, repeatedly and over a number of years, made them fat and unhealthy. Point one: no one forced them to eat that food. They had choices. They chose to eat fried, " fast food " , which is known to be less than ideal. Point two: wouldn't you think that when they first *began* gaining weight and experiencing a decline in health, the responsible thing to do is to evaluate your lifestyle (which includes diet), figure out what you're doing wrong, and cut back on whatever that is? On a bulletin board that I frequent, a woman who used to work at McDonald's said that the salad mentioned in the referenced article is a)not made anymore (it was a specialty promotion) and b)only one of the salads available. It's not the only salad out there, and the other salads actually are low-fat. Customers have choices- they can choose the salad with breaded, fried chicken & creamy dressing , or the one with grilled chicken, orange slices, and sunflower seeds. Thankfully, the judges confronted with these stupid and frivolous suits have thrown them out of court. People need to learn responsibility for their own actions. dave <dave4sale wrote: But people who many consider to be in their " right mind " do consider meat to be healthy. The Atkins craze certainly didn't help things. That isn't really Mc D's fault. Mc D's never claimed their burgers or their fries were healthy like subway claimed their sandwiches would help people lose weight. But, I'm pretty sure that Mc D's and Wendy's have advertised their salads as a healthy alternative to burgers and fries, even though the salads contain more fat. Isn't that deception worthy of sueing? Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Well, my opinion holds that it is better for this to left to the courts, and that there not be some new law on the books saying that no new lawsuits against fast food restaurants are allowed. Judges can just toss out the suits that have no merit. And people do need to take responsibility for their own actions, but those labels of warning you suggested in another post sure would be wonderful. I just worry that so many of the people who eat this food as a regular part of their diets are the underprivilaged and less learned folks that have never been taught proper health and nutrition. Maybe those labels of warning would at least give them pause to consider instead of going for years blaming their ever increasing waistlines on something else they've been told might be the cause. ~ PT ~ Compassion, in which all ethics must take root, can only attain its full breadth and depth if it embraces all living creatures and does not limit itself to mankind. ~Albert Schweitzer, philosopher, physician, musician, Nobel laureate (1875-1965) ~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~> , reptile grrl <reptilegoddess> wrote: > Thankfully, the judges confronted with these stupid and frivolous suits have thrown them out of court. People need to learn responsibility for their own actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Just for clarity, how are McD's and Wendy's salads higher in fat than their burgers? dave <dave4sale wrote:But people who many consider to be in their " right mind " do consider meat to be healthy. The Atkins craze certainly didn't help things. That isn't really Mc D's fault. Mc D's never claimed their burgers or their fries were healthy like subway claimed their sandwiches would help people lose weight. But, I'm pretty sure that Mc D's and Wendy's have advertised their salads as a healthy alternative to burgers and fries, even though the salads contain more fat. Isn't that deception worthy of sueing? , reptile grrl <reptilegoddess> wrote: > If you find that a hidden ingredient was in a food, one that is detrimental to health, etc, then yes, you should be able to sue on that regard (such as the Hindu suits about the French fries.) > > However, suing just because a food is fattening or unhealthy is bullocks. It negates personal responsibility. As an adult, I can choose to eat fatty fast foods, or I can choose not to. I am responsible for my own choices. No one in their right mind should think that a fast food hamburger is healthy. > > The Stewarts <stews9@c...> wrote: > The reason I think suits are acceptable is that they bait-and- switch. > They pump their foods full of things and alter them and serve you > something other than what you think you're buying. > > Pumping food full of corn syrup, for instance, only adds hidden, empty > calories and addicts the palate, which is why they do this. Yet we can't > sue them now for this deceptive practice? > > Gee, guess Congress is heavily invested in the Beef Industry, hm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 I read that it was actually only one particular salad. RMS <rmshore wrote:Just for clarity, how are McD's and Wendy's salads higher in fat than their burgers? Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.