# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  McDonalds settlement... sigh!

## Pete Hanlin

I'm reading my National Geographic, and there towards the front is a full-page ad explaining the "settlement" of a lawsuit filed against McDonalds in (where else) California.

Apparently, McDonalds intended to voluntarily lower the fat in its fries, etc., by changing the cooking oil it uses- which it announced to the public on 3 Sept 2002.  In February of 2003, McDs announced they were unsuccessful in instituting the change (having been an employee of the Golden Arches for two weeks during my college days, I suspect the change effected the taste of the fries- which are by far the best tasting in the industry).

Naturally, it followed that McDonalds should be sued.  After all, the good people of the world obviously base their eating habits on the premise that McD food is lower in fat than it really is...  Had we only KNOWN that McD food actually has tons of fat in it, we'd certainly make wiser dietary decisions!

The notice detailed the settlement- McDs agrees to pay $7million to the American Heart Association, and squander $1.5million advertising the fact that their fries contain just as much fat as ever.  BTW, if you DON'T want to be part of the settlement (i.e., you want to retain the right to sue McDs for misleading you into thinking the fat in the fries had been reduced for that 6 month period), you have to contact the court in Marin County, California.

Sigh...  As a public service, I am going to help my fellow citizens out by drawing attention to the fact that: 
a.) Ben & Jerry's ice cream contains fat and may lead to weight gain
b.) Coca-Cola contains a lot of sugar and carbonation
c.) Doritoes are chock full of saturated fats and cholesterol
d.) Cheeze-whiz... well, don't get me started

Are all people in the world so unaccountable for their own actions and decisions, or is this affliction limited only to Americans?  Of course, McDs is a "big business," so they must be inherently evil- and the American Heart Association is a very noble association.  So, nix all the above- we should all _continue_ to file insipid lawsuits against any corporation with deep pockets...

----------


## Jacqui

That's how I could get new equipment for the lab, sue the Evil Empire.  :idea:

----------


## Spexvet

Pete,

Were the plaintiffs republican? After all, they're the anti-law-suit faction that started legal action in the 2000 election, and in the Schaivo case. I'll bet they sued McDonalds, too. Of all the unmitigated....:p

----------


## jofelk

> ...
> Apparently, McDonalds intended to voluntarily lower the fat in its fries, etc., by changing the cooking oil it uses- which it announced to the public on 3 Sept 2002. In February of 2003, McDs announced they were unsuccessful in instituting the change (having been an employee of the Golden Arches for two weeks during my college days, I suspect the change effected the taste of the fries- which are by far the best tasting in the industry).
> 
> ...


I had also thought McD's fries tasted the best, sometime our recollections are different from reality. I can not determine the exact time, fries are a very occasional indulgence, I discovered a grease, bitter like after taste. I have not had them for about a year, maybe they are good again?

----------


## RGC_man

To say MacDonalds chips taste like cardboard is being unfair to cardboard. The last time I bought some they were _hollow._ I mean, how can you hollow the potato out of the middle?

Anyone eating that rubbish regularly deserves whatever happens to them.

----------


## chm2023

I'm confused--I thought McDonald's had changed the fat they used to fry those yums fires in years ago??  Was this another change or what?

If you want to read something thought provoking, pick up a copy of "Fast Food Nation".  The problem with McDonalds is not the food isn't good for you (who doesn't know that!) but some of their practices (school age kids working way more hours than legal, union busting tactics) are troubling.  That said, every once in a while I have to have a McD's cheeseburger and fries!!!  Forget tobacco companies, these guys are putting something in the food to make it addictive!!!;)

----------


## karen

> Pete,
> 
> Were the plaintiffs republican? After all, they're the anti-law-suit faction that started legal action in the 2000 election, and in the Schaivo case. I'll bet they sued McDonalds, too. Of all the unmitigated....:p


Nope, I bet they were freeeloading liberals-you KNOW how they always have their hand out for a free ride...  :p  :p  :p 
Can I just say how sometimes it is so embarrasing to live in California...

----------


## Spexvet

Wendy's rules!

----------


## Spexvet

> Can I just say how sometimes it is so embarrasing to live in California...


Yes, you can.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

I particularly enjoy all the little messages on products stating "This product is known by the state of California to contain- _enter deadly substance or side-effect here_."

The first time I visited California, I was really disappointed- because I expected everyone there to be geniuses (I mean, they apparently know all this stuff that the rest of the country doesn't, so they must have some special level of intelligence).
 :Rolleyes:  
Seriously, the first time I visited CA, I met karen- who is very smart.  So there are obviously intelligent people in the Golden State (now if you could just find some of them to send to Congress...).
:)

----------


## rsandr

> Are all people in the world so unaccountable for their own actions and decisions


I agree, i'm tired of hearing about people scolding themselves on hot coffee or reaching 30 stone and blaming fast food but McD's bring some of it on themselves.
We had a pamphlet through the door here in the UK describing in their words 'some of the ingredients we use here at McD's'....free range eggs, 100% prime beef, organic hand picked this that and the other. 
No mention of the tons of fat, salt, monosodium glutomate and lord knows what other rubbish they churn out, you would have been forgiven for thinking they were advertising health food.
I love the place personally but i'm grown up enough to limit myself, it seems many people aren't.

BTW do you guys have the 'big tasty' over there?

Rick

----------


## Spexvet

> ...So there are obviously intelligent people in the Golden State (now if you could just find some of them ...
> :)


Who are republican. :p

----------


## Aarlan

> As a public service, I am going to help my fellow citizens out by drawing attention to the fact that: 
> a.) Ben & Jerry's ice cream contains fat and may lead to weight gain
> b.) Coca-Cola contains a lot of sugar and carbonation
> c.) Doritoes are chock full of saturated fats and cholesterol
> d.) Cheeze-whiz... well, don't get me started


Pete

LAY OFF THE CHEEZ WHIZ   :Mad:  

You may not denigrate one of the greatest culinary discoveries of the 20th Century...perhaps of all time...Next you're going to say Tang is no good for you either...

AA

----------


## Jedi

> BTW do you guys have the 'big tasty' over there?


In Canada we get the Big EXTRA, I find it absolutely terrible. My favorite McDicks burger is 1/4 pounder or for our french counterparts  the Royale w/cheese.

----------


## 1968

> In Canada we get the Big EXTRA, I find it absolutely terrible. My favorite McDicks burger is 1/4 pounder or for our french counterparts the Royale w/cheese.


What do they call the Big Mac?

----------


## shanbaum

> Are all people in the world so unaccountable for their own actions and decisions, or is this affliction limited only to Americans? Of course, McDs is a "big business," so they must be inherently evil- and the American Heart Association is a very noble association. So, nix all the above- we should all _continue_ to file insipid lawsuits against any corporation with deep pockets...


No, just against any corporation that acts in a way so as to cause harm. Do you really want our society to work in the way you appear to propose - where people who are harmed by either the negligence or outright malice of businesses simply bear the burden of the injuries that result from those actions?

I'm sure you would not support the European alternative, where bureaucrats prescribe detailed rules for most of what businesses do. In fact, the U.S. tort system is the perfect companion for your cherised _laisser faire_ system of commerce - businesses get to do what they want, right up to (indeed, beyond) the point at which others get hurt _and_ complain in the form of lawsuits.

Are there abuses? Of course - just as there are abuses of free speech, which serve as the measure of our freedom to speak; the marginal actions are the price we pay for a free legal "market". The abuses aren't the cases you usually hear about, by the way - a case in which someone wins what appears to be a disproportionate award is _by definition_ not frivolous. The truly frivolous ones never go anywhere, but they're completely uninteresting, and politically useless.

What your Congress is actually doing - and doing with unbounded enthusiasm - is constraining the ability of individuals to seek legal redress against the wealthy (and therefore powerful) individuals and corporations who simply don't want to be sued (and who, incidentally, paid for their election). I have no doubt that there are people of average means who, despite the fact that the changes that are being made in our legal landscape work to their disadvantage, have been convinced by the right wing's propaganda that the lawyers - not the actual injuries - are "the problem". To you, I say, "Good Luck!" You'll need it, if you ever suffer any harm caused by a corporation, or a pharmaceutical company, or an oil company, or any of the other powerful interests that conspired to bring us this absurd government. Those kinds of interests will no longer be held responsible for having caused your injuries. You're going to be on your own, and that's exactly what they want. Not because they're evil, but because _they just don't want to pay_. 

And when you're bankrupted from paying for your injuries - oh, wait, you can't exactly be _bankrupted_ anymore, because that's really no longer an option. Now, you will pay, and pay, and pay. Citigroup thanks you.

So, good luck. And if you're luck fails, well, there's always the thousand points of light...

And by the way, Pete, the American Heart Association _is_ a _thoroughly_ noble organization.

----------


## karen

> In Canada we get the Big EXTRA, I find it absolutely terrible. My favorite McDicks burger is 1/4 pounder or for our french counterparts  the Royale w/cheese.


the DOUBLE 1/4 pounder with cheese is the best!!!!!!!!!! (with a diet coke of course to balance out the calories!  ;) )

P.S. Hi shanbaum!!!!! Where ya been????

----------


## shanbaum

> the DOUBLE 1/4 pounder with cheese is the best!!!!!!!!!! (with a diet coke of course to balance out the calories! ;) )
> 
> P.S. Hi shanbaum!!!!! Where ya been????


Where have _I_ been?  Where have _you_ been?

I can't believe you guys eat that stuff.  

Please pass the escargot.

----------


## chm2023

> No, just against any corporation that acts in a way so as to cause harm. Do you really want our society to work in the way you appear to propose - where people who are harmed by either the negligence or outright malice of businesses simply bear the burden of the injuries that result from those actions?
> 
> I'm sure you would not support the European alternative, where bureaucrats prescribe detailed rules for most of what businesses do. In fact, the U.S. tort system is the perfect companion for your cherised _laisser faire_ system of commerce - businesses get to do what they want, right up to (indeed, beyond) the point at which others get hurt _and_ complain in the form of lawsuits.
> 
> Are there abuses? Of course - just as there are abuses of free speech, which serve as the measure of our freedom to speak; the marginal actions are the price we pay for a free legal "market". The abuses aren't the cases you usually hear about, by the way - a case in which someone wins what appears to be a disproportionate award is _by definition_ not frivolous. The truly frivolous ones never go anywhere, but they're completely uninteresting, and politically useless.
> 
> What your Congress is actually doing - and doing with unbounded enthusiasm - is constraining the ability of individuals to seek legal redress against the wealthy (and therefore powerful) individuals and corporations who simply don't want to be sued (and who, incidentally, paid for their election). I have no doubt that there are people of average means who, despite the fact that the changes that are being made in our legal landscape work to their disadvantage, have been convinced by the right wing's propaganda that the lawyers - not the actual injuries - are "the problem". To you, I say, "Good Luck!" You'll need it, if you ever suffer any harm caused by a corporation, or a pharmaceutical company, or an oil company, or any of the other powerful interests that conspired to bring us this absurd government. Those kinds of interests will no longer be held responsible for having caused your injuries. You're going to be on your own, and that's exactly what they want. Not because they're evil, but because _they just don't want to pay_. 
> 
> And when you're bankrupted from paying for your injuries - oh, wait, you can't exactly be _bankrupted_ anymore, because that's really no longer an option. Now, you will pay, and pay, and pay. Citigroup thanks you.
> ...


Real life example is the current Ford truck (150?) situation. Apparently there is a switch that disengages cruise control that has the nasty habit of spontaneously combusting _while the car is shut off._ Ford has recalled thousands of these vehicles but apparently elected not to cast the net wide enough--a decision driven by a financial analysis. Alas, an elderly woman was burned to death when her unrecalled truck ignited and then the rest of the house went along with her. (The car had been parked for 3 days. As I understand it this swithch has a constant flow of electricity to it.)

If the Congress had its way (I don't believe the bill you are referencing has passed the Senate yet?) the husband would be entitled to the princely sum of $250,000. As the woman was retired there would be no recompense for her future wages so all the company would be liable for would be emotional distress. 

So in case you ever pondered the deep question of what a life is worth, well now you know: $250,000. 

This is a simple and eloquent example of why Rick Santorum makes me want to scream.  He is one of the advocates of this travesty;  when not talking about this, he preaches about _family values_.  Say what???  Sounds like corporate values to me, but of course that wouldn't appeal to many voters.

----------


## Jedi

> What do they call the Big Mac?


Well, a Big Mac's a Big Mac, but in Quebec they call it le Big-Mac.:bbg:

----------


## Pete Hanlin

No, just against any corporation that acts in a way so as to cause harm. Do you really want our society to work in the way you appear to propose - where people who are harmed by either the negligence or outright malice of businesses simply bear the burden of the injuries that result from those actions?
Coming back to the origination of this thread, do you really believe the six month gap between McDs announcement that it would be changing its cooking oil and the announcement that it had been unable to accomplish that goal caused people to be "harmed by either the negligence or outright malice" of McDs (to the tune of $8.5 million dollars- plus legal fees)?

You are 100% correct- corporations don't want to pay for injuries and claims (even when _they_ are the cause of said injuries).  My point is, consumers don't want to pay for their injuries and claims (even when _they_ are the cause of said injuries).  To put it succinctly, conservatives tend to lean in favor of laying the burden with the consumer- while liberals tend to lean in favor of laying the burden on the merchandizer.  Somewhere between the two factions is probably a reasonable middle groud that assesses about the right amount of blame on both parties.  In my opinion (thus this thread), holding McDs liable in any shape or form for the eating habits of consumers is just ludicrous and silly.  

McDs makes fattening food- eat a lot of it and you will suffer the consequences of such actions.  It is your decision whether to eat fattening food or no.  Most Americans make poor dietary choices- that isn't McDs fault.  It is not within the "corporate responsibility" of McDs to provide healthy meals for Americans who already have the free will to purchase more healthy meals (e.g., from Subway).

Put more succinctly, McDonalds doesn't harm people- people who consume unreasonable amounts of McDonald's product harm themselves (you'll have fun with that statement).

----------


## shanbaum

You need, first of all, to get the facts a little straighter.

McDonald's original announcement wasn't that they were going to "reduce the fat" in their fries, it was that they were going to reduce the _trans_ fat in their fries. Trans fat is what a) makes food taste good; and is b) the stuff in fat that is really, really bad for you. So, a lot of people in fact do avoid trans fats, even if they do not avoid fats altogether.

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that people who avoided trans fats would have heard the original announcement and concluded that it was then OK to eat McDonald's fries every now and then (or daily or whatever) - at least, they could have reckoned, they didn't have to worry about much trans fats in the fries.

The negligence - if that's what is was - occurred when McDonald's made a big deal about the original announcement, and only quietly announced the delay in executing their plan. People could have been hurt by consuming trans fats which they did not intend to consume, without being irresponsible at all - simply because of McDonald's actions.

Also, you failed to grasp the subtext of the settlement. McDonald's, in effect, agreed to make a charitable contribution, in an amount that is just barely visible on their accounting radar - the financial equivalent of a slap on the wrist, which was certainly not excessive compared to the magnitude of the transgression.

Get it? Transgression?

This is actually an example of an _effective_ use of the tort system to regulate corporate behavior.

----------


## Aarlan

> perfectly reasonable to believe that people who avoided trans fats would have heard the original announcement and concluded that it was then OK to eat McDonald's fries every now and then (or daily or whatever) - at least, they could have reckoned, they didn't have to worry about much trans fats in the fries.
> .


To think that by reducing the trans-fat in McD's fries suddenly makes them healthy is silly. They have simply become infinitesimally less unhealthy (or would have been if the proposed change went through). Is a 6 month delay in the debut of a proposed policy change really an offense that is worthy of a million dollar suit? There should have to be a clear showing of actual harm.


There should be some limit to lawsuits that are unquestionably frivolous (which this one seems to be), however, with all of the actual harm that is inflicted upon folks, sometimes willfully, there should not be a limit on what damages can be awarded to those who are actually hurt.

AA

----------


## shanbaum

> To think that by reducing the trans-fat in McD's fries suddenly makes them healthy is silly. They have simply become infinitesimally less unhealthy (or would have been if the proposed change went through). Is a 6 month delay in the debut of a proposed policy change really an offense that is worthy of a million dollar suit? There should have to be a clear showing of actual harm.
> 
> 
> There should be some limit to lawsuits that are unquestionably frivolous (which this one seems to be), however, with all of the actual harm that is inflicted upon folks, sometimes willfully, there should not be a limit on what damages can be awarded to those who are actually hurt.
> 
> AA


I didn't suggest that french fries of any type are "healthy" under any circumstances.  You suggest that removing trans fats from one's diet is pointless.  I will take your assertion with a grain of salt, unless you have some actual credentials to speak authoritatively on the subject, which you have not revealed.  _I_ certainly can't say that there's valid science either way, though the fact that McDonald's is spending a bundle of money on eliminating trans fats suggests that they think it may be more than a passing fad.

Neither you nor I know whether there was "clear showing of actual harm" in this case.  It seems to me - and apparently to McDonald's as well, since they _settled_ - that there was a colorable argument to be made that there was harm.

See my post above regarding the definition of _frivolous_.  As noted, a settlement that involves a $7MM _dontation_ and an agreement to spend $1.5MM more on informing customers of the ingredients in the food they eat is hardly a substantial penalty to McDonald's.  Indeed, it may be insufficient to get them to change their behavior much at all, which is the point, the whole point, and nothing but the point, in this case.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Well, if I've missed your point then we can call it even. Perhaps an individual could show that:
a.) they avoided McDonald's before the announcement
b.) due to the announcement of reduced trans-fat, they began eating at McDonalds more regularly
c.) subsequently, they suffered a health related disease brought about by the increase in the trans-fat consumption during the lapse of time between the announcement and the retraction

_"Well, that puts a huge burden of proof on the individual,"_ you complain. Precisely- just like the burden of proof required when finding anyone guilty of anything. As for the $8.5 million dollar settlement being a "slap on the wrist," that could not be more irrelevent. McDonalds should not have to pay a cent unless it can be proved that they: 
a.) made the original announcement without good faith that they would be able to reduce the trans-fat
b.) deliberately with-held information of their failure to do so from the public (which is different than "didn't run a multi-million dollar marketing campaign to announce the fattyness of their foods")
and c.) demonstrably harmed someone as a result

Just because a company has a lot of money does NOT mean it is "okay" to judicially mandate a donation- even to a worthy cause. In some cases, where actual harm occurs from actual negligence, a punishment is merited. This would not seem to be such a case (in the actual case, McDonalds has not admitted any guilt- in effect, they were judicially blackmailed for $8.5 million dollars).

PS- Pardon me, _thoroughly_ worthy cause :)

----------


## shanbaum

> _"Well, that puts a huge burden of proof on the individual,"_ you complain. Precisely- just like the burden of proof required when finding anyone guilty of anything. As for the $8.5 million dollar settlement being a "slap on the wrist," that could not be more irrelevent. McDonalds should not have to pay a cent unless it can be proved that they: 
> 
> a.) made the original announcement without good faith that they would be able to reduce the trans-fat
> 
> b.) deliberately with-held information of their failure to do so from the public (which is different than "didn't run a multi-million dollar marketing campaign to announce the fattyness of their foods")
> and 
> 
> c.) demonstrably harmed someone as a result
> 
> Just because a company has a lot of money does NOT mean it is "okay" to judicially mandate a donation- even to a worthy cause. In some cases, where actual harm occurs from actual negligence, a punishment is merited. This would not seem to be such a case (in the actual case, McDonalds has not admitted any guilt- in effect, they were judicially blackmailed for $8.5 million dollars).


First, I don't think it's a huge burden at all.  It's probably exactly what was written in the complaint.

Second, McDonald's size is completely relevant.  Punitive damages, when imposed, are imposed with a view to cause a change in behavior in the tortfeasor.  This is the regulatory effect of which I wrote earlier.

Third, there was no "judicial imposition" of _anything_; this was a _settlement_.

And fourth (ok, it's out of order), the assertion that McDonald's can only do harm by withholding information is utterly specious.  They made a big to-do about changing something that could reasonably be expected to cause some people to change their behavior (eat fries) - that's why they made the big to-do in the first place.  Failing to make an _equally_ big to-do about _not_ doing what they said they were going to do creates a condition in which some people will inadvertently do something they would not otherwise do.  In fact, they could have a problem unless they could show that they made a genuinely good-faith effort to inform customers of the delay.  Whether there is real harm to those people is a matter for a jury.

McDonald's settled another case recently, where they were accused of misrepresenting their fries as not containing animal products.  They were sued by a number of religious groups (including Hindus) and vegetarians.  How do you measure _that_ harm?  You might think it was inconsequential - they might think they're going to Hell.  Put a number on _that_.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you think McDonald's - or any company, or any individual - should be able to act in a way that causes harm with impunity.  You seem to think that unless they did something that smells bad - something _wicked_ - they should just be let alone.

Have you ever been in a car wreck?

----------


## Joann Raytar

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATOD...0032&oliID=213

At least a Burger King isn't jumping entirely on the band wagon.




> Are all people in the world so unaccountable for their own actions and decisions, or is this affliction limited only to Americans? Of course, McDs is a "big business," so they must be inherently evil- and the American Heart Association is a very noble association. So, nix all the above- we should all _continue_ to file insipid lawsuits against any corporation with deep pockets...


Either folks don't want to take the blame for their own eating habits (no one forced them to eat at McD's or BK) or they don't like the odds of playing lotto and thought they might give a lawsuit a try. Most fast food is junk food and it doesn't even pretend to be real food - that's what makes it good.  When's the last time you made a homemade burger that had the same texture, color and taste as a McDonald's burger? Take one look at the "beef" part and you know that thing can't be good for your health. But you gotta have it once and awhile.

----------


## 1968

> Well, a Big Mac's a Big Mac, but in Quebec they call it le Big-Mac.:bbg:


*laughs*  What do they call the Whopper?

----------

