A group of americans is suing several fast food companies for damage to their health caused by eating fast food see this

This seems very strange to me, do people want to live in a "nanny state" where all aspects of their lives are controlled for them or would we rather just takes responsiblity for ourselves?

Help!! what did I do wrong why didn't that post as a link???

[Fixed your link for you, Buffy. Linda]

One of the guys suing says, "I always thought it was good for you. I never thought there was anything wrong with it."

I find that hard to believe.

I don't even think this is a case of people wanting a "nanny state," but rather further evidence that this country has gone on a suing frenzy.

I don't know if all of them have this, but I've been to a McDonald's that had caloric charts and things of that nature posted near the food counter. Perhaps that isn't enough and next they'll be putting little boxes on the Big Mac wrapper, "Caution: This product contains many carbohydrates and fats. The consumption of this product may put you at an elevated risk of obesity, high cholesterol, and some claim, pimples."

Give me a break!

It looks to me as though they are suing as they need more money for Hamburgers

The US has gone lawsuit-crazy. Surely you remember the woman who sued McDonald's---and won!---because she bought coffee, spilled it ON HERSELF, and it burned her because it was hot. (And yes, I really bet she'd have b**tched if she'd gotten cold coffee, too

I really hope this madness is just a passing phase, sort of a rebound reaction to the many years when companies were in no way held liable for the damages their products caused, due to inadequate testing, cutting corners, etc.

It's definitely time the judges started throwing out lawsuits on the basis of plain ol' good sense. (HA!)

Hang on ... are you all saying that fast food is bad for you? So you mean that all the deep fried food and sugar filled stuff is fattening ?

Well, I never! (where's that little smilie face that used to roll his eyes?)



[Putting in a smiley for Copago - it's not the "rolling eyes" one, but it still seems like it fits! Linda1]

In my opinion, this is just like suing tobacco companies. No one from the companies forced anyone to put the food in their mouth. Ridiculous. Maybe they should sue their parents for giving them fast food to start with.

Arrggh... Yes, this country is sue-happy! Well, except for Sue943! Hey, we're Sue943 happy!

Well I certainly enjoyed my visit to good old US of A

Having said that I don't understand the concept of suing at the drop of a hat, this practice has crossed the Atlantic and more people over here consider attempting to get some money out of a situation instead of accepting that accidents happen. At present we are not as bad as the States, thank goodness, I don't like the idea of suing for the slightest reason.

I think one reason people are now so ready to sue is that attorneys are now allowed to advertise on TV. Mind you not all attorneys advertise.

When I first moved to my current home, I was astounded at all the television ads here. And this is, in my opinion, the main reason my auto insurance went up $1000/6 months. Sounds to me like someone has to pay for all the lawsuits that are brought.

I'm probably going to surprise you, in fact my opinion on this matter even surprises me but it's a result of a lot of reading up on a few things...the only positive thing here is that the fast food companies churned out a lot of blarney about their food being "healthy" when under fire from consumer groups etc, which meant you had little brochures trying to tell you that the meat was 100 beef and the french fries were done such and such a way...I'm not talking about the guy out to get a fast buck from his excess pounds nor the lawsuit crazy Americans, I'm simply saying that there is a definite point to be made about the empires created by fast foods in the world and the marketing strategies that purposely duped customers. Of course most people know the food in fast foods isn't good for them, but when a marketing strategy of a major corporation does everything they can to try and dupe people into thinking that cigarettes don't cause cancer, that the consumption of fast food has no negative consequences and only positive ones and in fact that McDonald's food is good for your kids rather than probably not going to harm them if it's not more than once a month, well then every once in a while they need to be embarrassed. Too bad it comes from someone that plenty of people are holding up in ridicule. And then as usual, they're saying how silly things are in the States, (I agree one hundred percent with the lawsuit thing, the more we sue for silly things the less people can sue for legitimate grievances) around the world.
Instead of looking at it and saying "well did anyone ever take a look at those little leaflets there they had as a response to the nutritional value of their food?"
Another reason I notice them is that here in France the mad cow thing and other cultural reasons have meant that McDonalds does its level best to try to minimize the commercial damage and encourage people to eat their food, in the face of French critics who see the downfall of society.
They have actually said that children eating once a week in McDonalds won't have any negative health effects!
So the thing that gets me is that it takes a widely publicized thing, that has the opposite effect on people, and they all say how crazy it is, and they neglect to look at the way the companies purposely tried to show that their food was pure and healthy. Of course that's business, I'm not naive, I work in the business world, but look at the way they try to prove that their food is good for kids.
Any parent who has taken a child to McDonalds knows fully well they rarely eat the whole thing, they want the toy made by exploited kids not much older than themselves in China, then they get a tiny bit of protein from the bit of meat in the chicken nugget and many don't even eat the fries...seems odd but it's the truth. Just visit one, watch people trying to coax the kid to eat the food and then tell me what you think.
The last time I went there, I was happy to see the yoghurt to drink, it probably has more nutritional value than the rest of it.

So I'm not happy about lawsuits from people out for a buck, of course not, but I do seriously question the marketing strategy of those places.

If all the overweight Americans would simply apply themselves to a healthier lifestyle instead of sitting in front of the television cited with the "I get you your money or I don't get my money" ads on daytime television from ambulance chasers, then we'd be in better shape.
How about boycotting the places?

To a certain extent I agree that there's probably a touch of the "sueing frenzy" going on here but I wouldn't guarantee these people really did know that fast food is bad for you. There is SO much conflicting info out there about what you should and shouldn't eat (and it changes almost everyday too!); and we have supposedly intelligent celebrities (an oxymoron? ) thinking it's okay to cut out virtually all the carbohydrates in their diet, it really is difficult to know what to believe. Take this, for instance:

Eating a bowl of some "luxury" breakfast cereals is as unhealthy as having five chocolate chip cookies, according to research.
The Food Commission, which carried out the study, says although people choose cereals for a healthy way to start the day, many brands contain too much sugar and saturated fat - linked to heart disease - and not enough fibre.

The watchdog suggests bran flakes, muesli and toast, which contain up to four times the fibre with considerably less saturated fat, as alternatives.

The cereal with most saturated fat - six grammes per 50 gram bowl - was found to be Quaker's Harvest Crunch with red berries.

It also contains 13g of sugar, nine of fat and just two of fibre.

Saying that, the guy could have probably just looked in a mirror to realise something was going haywire ... makes you wonder why he didn't consult a doctor several pounds ago instead of waiting till now and consulting a lawyer instead ....

In this country fast food is also known as 'junk food'; one would think that that would be a bit of a giveaway as to it's nutritional value. Personally, I would prefer to eat the packaging

My main concern in all this is the impression made on the younger generations- they will see supposedly responsible adults blaming everyone but themselves for errors in their own judgement.

This particular case is so ludicrous that it deserves to be laughed out of court.

I agree it's ludicrous but like you've just said, it's also ludicrous trying to sell people low fat products that have enough additives in them to kill off a horse.
Or the granola or muesli thing that is chock full of fat and sugar...
I get so tired of trusting this company or product for a while, not even anything remotely resembling fast food and then finding out it's just as bad as the junk food.
There are very positive changes they could make to improve the fast food products, ie; take out the beef fat that makes the fries taste so good.
If the Hindus hadn't raised a fuss about it in some countries they'd still be doing it.
I suppose most of us, including the Hindus know it's not terribly good for us to eat in a fast food place, but not that we're eating fries with beef fat...

Some countries have vegetarian burgers such as Italy and Germany, so if the fries are using beef fat then the consumer has been duped.

I think the lawsuit for "coffee is hot" was worse than this one...this one has more smoke for me.
I maintain that more people know that coffee is hot in a styrofoam cup you take from the drive in window than the "100 percent beef" burgers also include fat.
I'm not for the lawsuit, I'm against the publicity stunts trying to deliberately let people feel it's healthy food.
All in all, pretty sad indicators.

Now that you mention it, I do remember McDonald's going thru a phase there when they were talking about the 'positive nutritional qualities' of their food. I just didn't think anyone actually believed them. (*grin*)
Still, as a fat person myself, I find myself embarrassed on behalf of all the fat people involved in this lawsuit. Being fat I can't help (okay, I COULD be less fat, but I'm never gonna be skinny), but I hate the thought of ALSO being perceived as so stupid I didn't know McDonald's greaseburgers were bad for me.

There you go MsBatt, thanks, I was afraid you'd all think I was crazy...but doesn't anyone remember the McLean?
I'm saying that I don't like anyone trying to fill us full of garbage under the guise of healthy food.
I don't want to spoil things for you but they've done workups of the salads at WEndy's for example and with all that junk on it, you'd be better off with the hamburger. The chicken sometimes has more fat than the beef too.

I don't like the fast food companies getting off scot free from responsible advertising.
Over here they are very very careful...French McDonalds are watched like hawks by the anti global folks and French farmers. So they're not going to blow their mouths off about how healthy they're food is!
They've already said that once a week is enough for kids' nutrition! They also emphasize the use of French products in the food.
Like I said, anyone who takes a kid into McDonalds knows the kids love the toys and the playground...the food they don't care about really. They love the fries and what do they have in them? They had beef fat and in some instances caramel carefully calculated to have you wanting more!
It's all scientifically calculated. I'd have never thought that when I did break down and take the kids from time to time. Come on, you know it's junk but not beef fat. I was cleaning out chicken fryers before a lot of you were born so I was shocked about that. I worked a few years in restaurants and a fast food type thing or two myself. Like most American kids.

I used to go for the breakfast menu for my kid to get the toys, as it wasn't as bad. Not all of them will let you do it though.

I guess I'm not backing up the silly lawsuits, I'm saying, even the most clever amongst us is tricked by the advertising sometimes so let's not let them get away with it...if some lawyer thinks there's something worth gouging out of the corporation, the reason is simple...they tried to sell us anything in order to make big money.

MsBatt I hear where you're coming from too...I hadn't really thought of that because sorry, but I hear about how fat Americans are every day and see the French gloating over themselves so I just thought of how they all assumed we were lawsuit crazy again. They assume we're all fat and sometimes missing a few tools in the shed, but I see your connection and I resent it too.

We need to start another thread, I touched on it elsewhere today for smoking...the weight thing bothers me too.

Re: McDonalds and hot coffee. The following may be of interest -

"Stella Liebeck (79) ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drive thru window of a local McDonald's.

After receiving the order, her grandson (who was driving) pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.

During discovery, McDonald's said that, based on a consultant's advice, it held coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degree or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it is poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff’s expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, would cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

In pretrial discovery, Ms. Lieback's attorney learned that McDonald's had already been sued some 700 other times (!) for burn injuries caused by their hot coffee, and that they had routinely settled with the injured party, requiring each person to sign a confidentiality agreement, barring the person from talking about the nature of settlement. At the trial of the case, a McDonald's representative maintained that it was appropriate to continue to serve the coffee at 180 degrees, although people were going to get burned, because the numbers of burned people were "statistically insignificant."

The jury, which was inclined at the beginning of the trial to laugh the case out of court, was so enraged by McDonald's attitude that they found for Ms. Lieback."

Let's be honest here.....if all these fast food companies had put health warnings on their products.....I would wager that at least 90% of these people who are suing would still have eaten them.

In my humble opinion, they are just looking to make a fast easy buck. I hope it backfires and they have a mountain of court costs to pay, but no doubt it will end up being the honest tax payer who will suffer.

Thanks for posting that info Hegley. Most people think that case was baseless. The fact is, the woman had to have several operations to repair the damage from that coffee. She had every right to sue especially since McDonalds had settled similar suits in the past. They knew there was a problem and chose not to address it.

As for this suit, while I believe that fast food comapnies are evil, I don't see the basis of this suit. I hate these companies for other reasons, exploitation of workers, marketing to small children, putting honest farmers and ranchers out of business, I could go on and on. Read "Fast Food Nation:" if you'd like more info on the "Evil Empire" of fast food.

Let's face it, if you're a grown person and you don't know that a Big Mac isn't good for you, you have a problem. I do remember the McLean and several other "healthy" options that the fast food compaines came up with, like the Veggie Whopper. They never sell well and they usually aren't much lower in claories and fat than the regular menu items. It's sad that people can't control themselves or have enough responsibility for themselves, but we shouldn't have to foot the bill for them.

I don't think that this lawsuit is equivalent to the suits against the tobacco companies. The tobacco companies engaged in fraud and they apparently adulterated their products to increase the probability of addiction. That's why they were found liable.

This suit is completely frivolous and without merit.

The fast food chains have never claimed that their products were good for you, from a health standpoint, and they never claimed that their products were low in calories, fat or sugars. And the nutritional content of these foods is widely available. So the responsibility for choosing to ingest these foods rests squarely with the consumer. There is no negligence on the part of the fast food companies with regard to this lawsuit.

I saw the man who brought this suit, and his lawyer, in a TV interview. The lawyer could cite no real legal basis for the suit and he seemed to be mainly a publicity seeker.The person conducting the interview was also an attorney and he seemed outraged at the lawyer who filed this suit. I think that lawyers who take these frivolous suits are really acting unethically and they should be sanctioned.

This suit is so without merit that I think it will never make it to court--it will be thrown out. Meanwhile, the man who brought the suit, and his lawyer, have enjoyed their 5 minutes in the spotlight--including the time and attention they have gotten from us.