McDonald’s has once again been threatened with a lawsuit. The movie Super Size Me interviewed lawyers who had brought lawsuits against McDonald’s on behalf of parents of obese children. When one lawyer was asked why he was suing McDonald’s, he replied, “You mean, other than the monetary gain? You want to hear a noble reason? Ummmm….” We never do hear the rest of this lawyer’s reply. It was edited out.
The movie Super Size Me was a compelling one, full of statistics and interviews by key people in the food industry and those on the other side of it. Those on the other side of it shared how the food industry has largely contributed to obesity in America, how their marketing tactics are geared toward children to get them hooked on sugary, fatty foods for life, and how their presence (based on their enormous amount of locations to eat at) is overbearing to the point that they are impossible to avoid.
I have included the full movie right here for your viewing enjoyment:
If parents can sue food chains for making their children fat, what sort of accountability do the parents have? None? Congress joined the argument in 2004 when the House passed the “Cheeseburger Bill,” which made suing a food company on grounds that they made you obese illegal. Officially called the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, this bill did not make it past the Senate, and thus never became law.
Despite the fact that the Cheeseburger Bill did not pass, those kinds of lawsuits have still been thrown out in court – with judges concluding that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence that those particular foods are the cause of their injury (i.e., being obese).
Placing blame on the food industry is becoming more common. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill in 2008 that made California the first state to ban artery-clogging trans fats from being used in restaurants. It was the restaurants that were to blame here – not the people that were walking into them, sitting down and ordering what they pleased from the menu.
McDonald’s may seem to be unfairly attacked compared to Burger King or Taco Bell. They hold the monopoly in the fast food industry with more than 31,000 restaurants in over 119 countries on nearly every continent on earth. They have more restaurants than any other fast food chain by a landslide (Burger King has only 11,000 restaurants worldwide, and Taco Bell has about half that amount). With playgrounds inside their restaurants and toys in their children’s meals, it is obvious that their chief target is children. Those trying to put a dent in the obesity epidemic say that McDonald’s advertising geared toward children is an unfair fight to the average consumer.
The most recent threat of a lawsuit has been brought on by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Their warning: McDonald’s needs to stop marketing their meals to children with toys or get sued. Their grounds for the lawsuit? McDonald’s toy-promotion marketing techniques violate state consumer protection laws in four states (Massachusetts, Texas, New Jersey, and California) and the District of Columbia.
Now it’s McDonald’s toys that are the problem. Toys lure children. But do toys just lure children to McDonald’s? Absolutely not. Advertisers also use toys to lure children to violent video games, sexually charged movies, and toward music that glorifies drugs, sex, and crime. Do these toys violate consumer protection laws as well? Are toys that supposedly lead to an inflation of your waistline considered worthy of a lawsuit while toys that pollute the mind and diminish moral character okay?
It will be a sad day indeed if a court decides that the responsibility for what children eat lies with the restaurant rather than the parent. Education begins at home – not in the classroom, and certainly not in a restaurant. It is at home that children learn how to eat. Parents have a responsibility to teach children about smart food choices. McDonald’s nutrition facts will reveal that the majority of their food is unhealthy (this falls into the common sense category). McDonald’s big mac has 540 calories alone. Adding medium fries and a medium coke will make that a meal with 1,130 calories- more than half of my caloric requirement for an entire day.
Knowing this, wouldn’t it be irresponsible of me to subject my children to this kind of a diet regularly? Have parents given their children so much freedom that they no longer attempt to influence their childrens’ diets? Saying that McDonald’s is to blame is making parents out to be incompetent and incapable of providing appropriate care for their own children. McDonald’s advertising may make some cringe, but nobody is forcing parents to buy these meals for their kids. Who is responsible for what your kids eat? McDonald’s or parents? If parents are going to be made out to be senseless unsuspecting victims, that is the message we will prepare our children with for raising our future generations.
Recommended Reading:
Doughnut Eating Contest – this kind of contest is not as harmless as you would think. Participating in such a contest is often a reflection of a bigger problem.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I dont blame McDonalds for anything…I dont think they have done anything wrong. They provide a service for the people who eat there. If there was no demand, there would be no supply….
If people are getting fat becuase of mcdonalds…expecially the children, it is THEIR fault…or the Parents fault. I have 3 kids…and we eat at McDonalds maybe…lol, twice a year… I think Mcdonalds is cute, and I think they try… obese people just want somebody to blame or to blame for their obese kids other than themselves. They want to point fingers and be in denial about what they need to do. If you dont want fat kids dont feed em Micky D’s twice a day. Simple.
I agree that McDonald’s is providing a service to people, and ultimately, consumers choose who they do business with. Placing the blame on the food industry seems rather unfair to me, because they are a BUSINESS, and have the right to market themselves and sell what products they want. If people do not like the outcome that results from doing business with an establishment, they shouldn’t go there anymore.