McDonald’s fires back at ‘food police’

McDonald’s fires back at ‘food police’

Cheryl V. Jackson
Chicago Sun Times
Dec. 15, 2010

McDonald’s Corp. brass is calling critics who blame the fast-food giant for the growing obesity rate in the U.S. and other developed nations — including its child Happy Meals — “food police.”

Regulators and activists have recently turned up the heat on initiatives to combat the high-calorie, high-fat meals.

“We’ve seen many years of someone trying to dictate behavior through legislation. Our Happy Meals have been supported by parents since the 1970s. The nutrition of Happy Meals, which include apples, meets FDA guidelines,” CEO Jim Skinner told the Financial Times. “We sell choices on the menu that make our customers feel better.”

San Francisco’s board of supervisors in November voted to stop restaurants from offering toys with meals that didn’t comply with limits on calories, sodium, sugar and fat. The ban takes effect in December 2011.

The Oak Brook-based fast food leader has recently become aggressive in answering critics.

In July, McDonald’s rebuffed a watchdog group’s threat of a lawsuit against it if it did not dump the toys from the meals. The group, The Center for Science in the Publics Interest, had called the use of toys to entice kids to eat Happy Meals “unfair and deceptive marketing” that “is illegal under various state consumer protection laws.”

Skinner said the Happy Meal toys are staying — as McDonald’s customers want.

“Internet sites, blogs and network surveys suggest that public opinion is running overwhelmingly against your premise,” Skinner wrote in response. “Our customer websites and phone lines at McDonald’s are also busy, with more than nine out of 10 customers disagreeing with your agenda.”

McNanny-Staters Sue McDonalds

Doug Powers
MichelleMalkin.com
December 15, 2010

The CEO of McDonalds told the Center for Science in the Public Interest to go pound non-fat, sodium free sand over the summer, but they’re back with a lawyer this time:

WASHINGTON—A mother of two from Sacramento, Calif., says that McDonald’s uses toys as bait to induce her kids to clamor to go to McDonald’s and to develop a preference for nutritionally poor Happy Meals. With the help of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, today the mom, Monet Parham, is filing a class action lawsuit aimed at stopping McDonald’s use of toys to market directly to young children. The suit will be filed in California Superior Court in San Francisco shortly after the court opens for business Wednesday morning.

According to Parham, the main reason her six-year-old daughter, Maya, asks to go to McDonald’s is to get toys based on Barbie, i-Carly, Shrek, or Strawberry Shortcake. The food seems almost beside the point to the kids, says Parham, because the toy monopolizes the attention of Maya and her two-year-old sister Lauryn.

Because I’m in the mood to help the Center for Science in the Interest of Intruding on the Public come up with some alternatives, here’s some advice for the mother mentioned in the story: The next time your kids ask to go to McDonalds, try saying this: “NO!” It’ll work wonders — or you can just sue McDonalds if it’s easier. That way you’ll get the added benefit of teaching your kids exactly how they too can grow up to be crappy parents.

Not to belabor a point, but if the toys are distracting the kids from the food, shouldn’t Happy Meals be receiving the Michelle Obama “Let’s Move” Golden BMI Calipers seal of approval instead of lawsuits from spineless, intrusive ninnies?

If they don’t like Happy Meals, let ‘em move to San Francisco.

*Sigh* Our founders are rolling over in their graves.

Can you say "nanny state?"

We need loser pays in the worst way.

Maybe she'll sue Walmart for carrying toys. Or maybe Toys R Us.

Seriously... how fucking bad do you have to be as a parent to sue McDonald's because you cannot say "no" as a parent?

Honestly, this is "through the looking glass" insanity here!

Reminds me of the dude who sued fast food in New York City a few years ago because he got fat as shit. He couldn't put down the fork. That was his problem. He lost, btw.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91427&page=1

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58652,00.html

TexasBlue wrote:Reminds me of the dude who sued fast food in New York City a few years ago because he got fat as shit. He couldn't put down the fork. That was his problem. He lost, btw.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91427&page=1

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58652,00.html

That's why we need loser pays... once enough of these assholes get a clue that they can't just file a frivolous law suit with no consequences perhaps we'll see a reduction in this sort of costly nonsense.

dblboggie wrote:That's why we need loser pays... once enough of these assholes get a clue that they can't just file a frivolous law suit with no consequences perhaps we'll see a reduction in this sort of costly nonsense.

It reminds me of a trial back in the late 80s regarding the heavy metal band Judas Priest. The band (and CBS Records) were sued for the suicides of their kids. It was thrown out at the end. Who paid? Judas Priest and CBS Records.

Nabbed from Wikipedia.......

---

---

---

Subliminal message trial

In the summer of 1990, the band was involved in a civil action that alleged they were responsible for the self-inflicted gunshot wounds in 1985 of 20-year old James Vance and 18-year old Raymond Belknap in Reno, Nevada, USA. On 23 December 1985, Vance and Belknap, after hours of drinking beer, smoking marijuana and allegedly listening to Judas Priest music, went to a playground at a church in Reno with a 12-gauge shotgun to end their lives. Belknap was the first to place the shotgun under his chin. He died instantly after pulling the trigger. Vance was the next to follow suit but only blew away the lower half of his face. This was possibly because the weapon was slippery with blood.

The men's parents and their legal team alleged that a subliminal message of "do it" had been included in the Judas Priest song "Better By You, Better Than Me" from the Stained Class album (actually a cover of a Spooky Tooth number). They alleged the command in the song triggered the suicide attempt. The trial lasted from 16 July to 24 August 1990, when the suit was dismissed. One of the defense witnesses, Dr. Timothy E. Moore, wrote an article for Skeptical Inquirer chronicling the trial.

The trial was covered in the 1991 documentary Dream Deceivers: The Story Behind James Vance Vs. Judas Priest. In the documentary, Halford commented that if they wanted to insert subliminal commands in their music, killing their fans would be counterproductive and they would prefer to insert the command "Buy more of our records." Regarding the plaintiff's assertions that the statement "do it" was a command to commit suicide, Halford pointed out "do it" had no direct message.

Judas Priest and Metal on Trial

Did the Heavy Metal Band Incite Teen Suicide by Subliminal Messages?

Engrid Whisenant
Suite101.com
Apr 5, 2008

In 1985, after hours of listening to Judas Priest's album "Stained Class," two Reno youth attempted to commit suicide sparking a court trial and national debate.

When Judas Priest was summoned to Reno in 1990 to stand trial in a high-profile teen suicide lawsuit, metal had already come under much media scrutiny. But, while previous lawsuits sought damages for violent lyrics, Judas Priest was charged with inciting suicide through subliminal messages.

Deadly Intent

On December 23, 1985, two Reno youth, James Vance and Ray Belknap, spent an afternoon listening to music by Judas Priest, drinking beer, and smoking marijuana. Then, they headed to a local church playground where Belknap shot himself in the head with a 12-gauge shotgun dying instantly. Vance's attempt was less successful, and he survived despite severe facial trauma. Requiring 140 surgeries and living in extreme pain, Vance died several years later from drug complications.

Fear of the Unheard

The plaintiffs' case focused on one particular song from the band's "Stained Class" album entitled "Better by You, Better than Me." According to attorneys for the plaintiff, the subliminal command "do it," which they claimed was embedded throughout the song, had pushed the two teenagers over the edge. James Vance would later tell a Reno Gazette Journal reporter that, after listening to the album, he felt programmed as if a "self-destruct button" had been pressed.

Tricky Ground

But, in order to make this allegation, the plaintiffs had to concede that the two teenagers were already suicidal and that the music was the final trigger. They also had to prove that the messages were actually there. The plaintiff's expert witness reverse-engineered Judas Priests's music and declared that subliminal messages were laced throughout the lyrics. But, questions about the teenagers' home lives and already troubled states remained.

Subliminal Message Rights?

The defendants argued that the First Amendment protected their freedom of speech in all cases and circumstances. But, Judge Whitehead ruled that subliminal messages were not covered under freedom of speech because they violated privacy laws due to their unavoidable nature. So, the defendents brought in expert witness, Anthony Pellicano, analyzer of the infamous Watergate tapes, who testified that the alleged instances of subliminal material on Judas Priests's album were at best unintentional and most likely nonexistent.

The Verdict

Despite creating a national hysteria that drove many parents to fastidiously monitor their teenagers' listening material, proving that Judas Priest's music had pushed two teenagers to commit suicide was more difficult to demonstrate than prosecutors originally foresaw. In fact, the plaintiffs were never able to clearly prove that subliminal messages were actually embedded in the album, and Judas Priest was acquitted on all charges.

Reverberations

This verdict was hugely important to creative freedom in Metal. After a minister's son killed himself listening to Ozzie Osbourne's "Suicide Solution," his parents also claimed that subliminal messages were to blame. But, the judge cited the Judas Priest trial concluding that the existence of subliminal messages could not be proven. Today, albums labeled with explicit and violent lyric warnings attest that the debate about action-inducing lyrics remains. But, the emphasis on subliminal messages has gone silent.