Wake up and smell the french fries …
Posted by Rick - 25/07/02 at 03:07:46 pmI recently read on some site or another a list of alleged warnings for products that most people with half a brain would consider to be silly to have to point out. Warnings such as “remove child before folding” on a stroller. Or containers of peanuts that warn the consumer that the product contains nuts. Or sleep aid medicines that state that the product may cause drowsiness.
You get the picture.
Today I read an article on the BBC News Web site about a group of overweight Americans who are suing the the big four of fast food—McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken—claiming these companies knowingly served meals that cause obesity and disease. The lawsuit claims that the companies “misled customers by enticing them with greasy, salty and sugary food.”
One of the plaintiffs in the suit, Caesar Barbar, claims that the fast food industry has “wrecked his life.” You see, Mr. Barbar “always thought [fast food] was good for you” and “never thought there was anything wrong with it.” It wasn’t until after Mr. Barbar’s had two heart attacks and his doctor told him to change his diet that he realised the connection between fatty, greasy, sodium-drenched food and his health problems.
Logically, it is the companies who “enticed” him who are to blame.
Similar Posts
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress. Theme based on GimpStyle.
© 2009 Terrapin Gardens
Good lord. Well I guess it’s hard to sue yourself for your own stupidity.
Comment by sherry — July 25, 2002 #
Stupid, yes. But is the fast food industry insidious? Read “Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American Meal” and then decide. Also, it seems like these lawsuits have parallels to the tobacco ones, which most people were in favor of. Anyway, just some (fast) food for thought
Comment by Mary — July 25, 2002 #
I actually just read fast food nation, and although I hardly have high praise for the junk these restaurants are serving, I don’t think law suits against them are legitimate.
The difference with tobacco was the addiction factor — that they were actually *trying* to increase nicotine and raise the addictiveness of their products. Fast food is crap but it’s not physically addictive and everyone not living in a cave knows that it isn’t good for you.
Comment by Lori — July 25, 2002 #
I was just going to say the same thing, Lori. While fast food’s marketing practices are predatory they don’t actually add addictive items to the foods to make it difficult for people to “kick the habit.”
I was trying to highlight the idiotic comments of the plaintiff. That he thought fast food was “good for you.” That’s not the fault of the fast food giants. That’s just stupidity.
Mary’s right that I need to read that book. And she’s been telling me that for a while now
Comment by Rick — July 25, 2002 #
i’m not entirely certain that the fast food companies don’t add addictive products, especially to the french fries. it has been over a decade since i had any, but gracious, all i have to do is catch a whiff of those greasy harbingers of death and i’m craving them for days.
love and peace,
Comment by heidi — July 25, 2002 #
I find the whole trend of blaming the manufacturer, whether it’s booze, smokes, or fries, for what the consumer does with the product pretty disturbing. Do we actually *want* the government (currently headed by a guy who is utterly corrupt and incapable of spelling the word “corrupt”, let alone using it correctly in a complete sentence) to think for us and not allow these dangerous items to be made and sold to a fully suspecting public? Shouldn’t it be up to individual to decide if he or she wants to eat 5 pounds of grease at one sitting or smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day? Gah. These idiots piss me off (bet you couldn’t tell).
Comment by Suzy — July 26, 2002 #
I’ve always said that I think warning labels should be *removed* from everything that’s already completelyfuckingobvious. “Do not use blow dryer while in bathtub” - “Caution, contents of hot coffee cup are HOT” - “Danger, climbing this electrical tower may result in a really gory death” - Get RID of these! The gene pool could use a little chlorination, so to speak.
*sigh* Guess I’m little crochety today
Comment by Christine — July 26, 2002 #
Ahhh, imagine all the law suits going down if drugs were actually legalized. You’d have people filing suit against the multi-national corporation who produced heroin. (of course not against the weed corporation, as potential plaintiffs would be too mellow to sue ;p )
Comment by Lori — July 26, 2002 #
Right on Lori! Or if they did want to sue, they would forget about it.
Comment by Liz — July 26, 2002 #
I cannot believe this lawsuit. Granted, marketing techniques can be very persuasive, but come on! I’ve been exposed to the food pyramid since grade school - even Sesame Street discusses the importance of fruit and vegetables. If someone cannot figure out that you’re not getting your daily servings of fruits and vegetables in a Quarter Pounder value meal (despite the fact there’s ketchup on the burger…), there are bigger issues at hand. McDonald’s has never advertised their food as being healthy!! Nor Burger King. The fact is, as Americans, we are constantly surrounded with “more is more” messages - supersize, biggie, jumbo, etc. Where else in the world can you get 20 oz. of coffee in one serving???? Come on people - let’s start facing the facts - and stop buying products that we all know, not taken in moderation, aren’t good for us!
Comment by Stephany — July 29, 2002 #
This is mostly unconnected, but I was flipping through a First Aid manual recently and came across this advice: “Do not apply a tourniquet to victim’s neck.”
Comment by mark — July 29, 2002 #
One of the aims of the lawsuit is to get some truth into fast food marketing. I am not sure how they are to do it but the actions askd that people be told (whether on the menu or on the wrap) the exact same info required on food you buy at the supermarket.
How many calories in the seving.
What % of a 2,000 calorie a day diet the serving contains as to fat, sodium, carbohydrate and protein.
Comment by Virginia Rose — August 7, 2002 #
I am curious as to why you all think this is obvious to people over 40? Are any of you at all aware of what the world was like in the 1950 and 1960’s when most of us were growing up? Maybe 10% of the population had nutrition info. Such contempt you show for those not of your class and kind. There are many many people who do NOT have any of the info you just assume “everybody” knows about.
Comment by Virginia Rose — August 7, 2002 #
Virginia, you know NONE of us. So you know NOTHING about *our* kind or “class.” Ignorance is not an excuse when it comes to this issue. The guys claims — and I quote him — that he thought fast food was GOOD for him. Not even “I didn’t know it was THAT bad.” He said “GOOD” for him.
I am nearly 40, and have known how bad fast food is for folks since I was a kid in the 70s. My mother was born in the 30s and she knew when I was a child that fast food was not good food.
Not sure what your point is to come here and try and lecture, but you should get off your high horse. As it was REPORTED when I commented, this lawsuit is frivilous. There is no mention of having these companies report an items individual nutritional value (which I would applaud), BUT most fast food places do post something about the fat content of their meals. And they usually fudge the numbers any way they can! More than 2/3 of all meals are consummed in the home. This guy did not get fat and have 2 heart attacks because he ate Big Macs morning, noon and night. He is an idiot and he is trying to make a buck.
Comment by Rick — August 7, 2002 #
Well you are really something. That man’s DOCTOR didn’t know enough about nutrition to advise him properly until he had his second heart attack. Nutrition wasn’t even taught in medical schools til the mid 80’s but you and your mother knew so eveyone should have. Now that the lawsuit has already changed the type of fat McDonalds is using in its food why don’t you get off your high horse and apologise for being such a stupid idiot. The lawsuit is not frivilous and you saying it is and newspapers owned by multinationals saying it is, does not make it so. Frivilous is a legal term of art and only a court making a determination will make this suit frivilous and that would be subject to appeal. Those lawsuits preceeding this one against these same companies have forced changes in their ads wherein they claimed items to be vegetarian and they were not. You need several lectures on the nature of coporate america and social change. But my point is just beyond your grasp.
Comment by Virginia Rose — September 3, 2002 #
I would think common sense would tell you that food cooked in vegetable oil is not good for you. You shouldn’t have to read a sign posted in a restaurant, good judgment would tell you all you need to know. It’s not rocket science…
I don’t think this guy’s lawsuit has any grounds for argument. People have known about food labels, and how bad carbs and fat and calories have been for at least the past 12-15 years. The guy himself said that he didn’t know how bad the food was for him until 1999. I think that is neglect on his part and not on the part of the fast-food chain that he purchased the food from.
If he had paid more attention to what he was eating, he would have known how harmful it could be to his health. He could have stopped eating the harmful foods long ago when people became more health conscious and saved himself 15 years of more damage.
Comment by Jessica — September 4, 2002 #
That man’s DOCTOR didn’t know enough about nutrition to advise him properly until he had his second heart attack.
Really? Wow. I would’ve thought the first heart attack would’ve been a clue. But then, what do I know? I’m not a doctor. I’m just relying on my common sense.
but you and your mother knew so eveyone should have
Gosh. Sounds like somebody was born with… erm… what’s that phrase I’m looking for? Oh yes. Common sense.
Frivilous is a legal term of art and only a court making a determination will make this suit frivilous
Well, if you mean frivolous, determining that is also a matter of… everybody with me now… 1, 2, 3… COMMON SENSE!
Get some.
Comment by Don — September 4, 2002 #
That man’s DOCTOR didn’t know enough about nutrition to advise him properly until he had his second heart attack.
That’s right, I forgot, doctors are never wrong, never misdiagnose ANYTHING. I guess it’s just an accident that the cost of medical malpractice insurance has skyrocketed over the past couple of decades.
Nutrition wasn’t even taught in medical schools til the mid 80’s
Gee, were you in Med School in the 60s? 70s? 80s? Which one? All of them? Didn’t think so.
The lawsuit is not frivilous and you saying it is and newspapers owned by multinationals saying it is, does not make it so. Frivilous is a legal term of art and only a court making a determination will make this suit frivilous and that would be subject to appeal.
Not only did she attend every Medical school in the country, but she had enough time to go to Law school as well. Obviously a very talented individual. And somehow she still never did manage to pick up that little thing called common sense that most of us take for granted.
Comment by Josh — September 4, 2002 #
A very funny cartoon from Non Sequitur. For those who don’t want to click through, the cartoon is of a guy standing on a scale yelling “Honey… I’ve gained 2 more pounds. Who should I sue?”
Comment by Rick — September 26, 2002 #
Omg…I think the dude needs some plain out common sense. Who in the world would sue a fast food resturant for selling junk food? It’s not their fault you’re just plain out dumb! Just like Foamy said…damn fat bastards suing McDonald’s because they’re a fat bastard! I mean get real people! I’m only in the 8th grade and I know more than THAT!!
Comment by Alice Steale — August 23, 2004 #