David Teather in New York
Friday February 21, 2003
The Guardian

McDonald's was last night facing a renewed legal action claiming the fast food chain was responsible for health problems among a group of obese American children.


Lawyers representing eight overweight children in New York have seized on comments made by a judge in dismissing an earlier suit, that the world's largest restaurant chain was serving "McFrankenstein" food. The renewed complaint carries a 46-page amendment that argues consumers are not fully aware of what goes into McDonald's food.

One plaintiff, a 15-year-old boy, is 5ft 6in and weighs 400 pounds. The diabetic claims to have eaten at McDonald's almost every day since he was six.

The decision by lawyers to renew the suit is an uncomfortable development for the restaurant and food industries, which fear they could become the next focus for the fee-hungry legal profession after the tobacco business.

Judge Robert Sweet was bluntly dismissive of the original complaint last month brought on behalf of two children from the Bronx.

But he left the door open for potential litigants if it could be proved there are dangers in eating McDonald's food that are not commonly known. He said it could be argued that Chicken McNuggets, instead of being simply chicken fried in a pan, are a "McFrankenstein creation of various elements".

The amended lawsuit argues that McDonald's engaged in "deceptive practices" in its promotion and advertising. The lawyer, Samuel Hirsch, said: "They're speaking out of both sides of their mouth," when the company claims its food is healthy but should be eaten in moderation.

The complaint says that a McDonald's nutritional brochure described the fish in its Filet-O-Fish as being "100% cod with a pinch of salt to taste after cooking". But a list of ingredients from by the com pany includes "modified corn starch, dextrose, cellulose gum, citric acid and an anti-foaming agent called dimethylpolysiloxane".

McDonald's had hailed last month's ruling as a victory for common sense. Yesterday it described the renewed suit as "senseless" and "absurd".

"McDonald's serves quality food and ingredients from quality suppliers - bread, chicken, fish, beef, potatoes, eggs, milk and other products common to grocery stores, restaurants and home kitchens."

It added: "Weight issues are all about the totality of an individual's daily choices about exercise, sedentary lifestyle [and] diet."

:eek: That is just criminal! Are his parents insane??
I was annoyed when I went out for dinner with my family in Germany, because my cousin fed her 1 1/5-year-old fries and meat but no veggies at all. The poor child is encouraged at such a young age to eat potatos and meat and to dislike veggies! My sister and I gave him some tomato at breakfast, but my grandmother had to butt in and coo "here, sausage! Now *that* is yummy" and force her sandwich with way too much butter and sausage on it on the kid.
Now if that gets me annoyed, you can imagine what this articule makes me. Disgusting. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

For the record, I do enjoy an occasional McDonalds meal very much indeed (but then I'm trying to gain weight ;) ) but when I was a child, the place was a frikken taboo for me! :D I think that between the ages of 0-14 I haven't been to a big fast food restaurant more than thrice. Sure we were allowed fries and sure we didn't like all veggies... but if it's true that this kid practically spent all his mealtimes at McDonalds... that's sickening. Poor child. :(
He should sue his bloody stupid parents, not McD's.

[ 05-01-2003, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

IMO, this is just another case of people not wanting to take responsibilities for their own actions. Did McDonalds force anyone to eat their food? No. Heck, I can't remember the last time I ate there. The 15 year old should be suing his parents, they are the ones who were/are responsible for feeding him, not McD's. Seesh, grow up! I'm so sick of all these people who want to blame others for their problems. Heck, I remember seeing a guy on the news one day shortly after some of the tabacco settlements saying that if he gets cancer from the cigarrettes he's smoking he wants them to pay. HELLO!! STOP SMOKING! Sorry, but I don't sympathize. I'm not saying that this is my attitude towards obese people or addicts (I lump cigarrette smokers in there), I'm just saying this is my attitude towards those in society that would rather point the finger than take responsibility for their own actions.
If McD's was the only restaurant in the whole country and there were no grocery stores, so McD's was your ONLY option, I could understand, but I have yet to find such a place, so if you eat fast food, you pay a price. Anyone who tries to say now a-days that they don't know fast food isn't healthy for you, that cigarrettes will give you cancer and that drinking too much can damage your liver is lying. Pure and simple.

Whoa, not only lust for fatty food, but also lust for a quick buck. Would there be any judge who'd fall for such a stupid case ?

I second every last word of Mel´s post. My thoughts and feelings exactly. I doubt that McDonald's forced the food on the child, therefore the blame is not theirs. I wonder why the American legal system is being laughed at in most countries. ;) At least when it comes to lawsuits and insurance cases. ;)

if this is true then how can they make the food taste like $#!+, sorry, but i have some sympathy for the kid, but I think if anything his parents should get a malpractice suit(I've seen at least one before in the papers), not Mickey D's

<font color="#fcdbe4"> Why are potatos bad? and why aren't they considered part of the veggie family? is it because they grow in the ground? ...carrots grow under the soil as well....enlighten me oh guru's of plantdom [img]smile.gif[/img] What makes a veggie, a fruit and ....well what ever potatos are? :D </font>

[ 05-01-2003, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

I believe that technically, veggies grow on the plant, and fruits hang from the plant. Hence, a tomato is technically a fruit...

But that has been such a long and holy war that I won't get into it :D

And potatoes are actually pretty good, unless they've been fried in beef fat and turned into french fries. That extra oil knocks down a bit of the healthy stuff.

The kid's parents made a choice. Apparently, they made a bad (and costly, when you think about eating at McD's for eleven years) choice. We go out to eat with the kids at least once a week (the Friday night family dinner). Sometimes, the kids pick, and McD's is an option. They get what they want (within reason), they eat what they want, and then they play in the play area (getting some of that physical exercise). No problems so far, and none foreseen.

Are we eating there BLD? Not hardly.

I guess moderation is the key... and I wonder what stellar specimens of perfect health the kid's parents are... :D

Potatoes aren't bad MagiK - I don't see anyone asserting it. They provide vitamin C and B and carbs. But when you eat them fried all the time, never boiled or pureed or whatever, you eat way too much saturated fat. Just because the potato itself isn't bad for you doesn't mean the ways you can prepare it in are all healthy. Also, you need something from each different food group. Just because potatoes are good for you doesn't mean it's healthy to eat only potatoes and nothing else.
As for why potatoes aren't fruit.. LOL, they just aren't. Neither are carrots, by the way.
Fruits grow on woody crops and veggies on nonwoody crops (except for strawberries). Botanically speaking, a fruit is simply any fleshy material covering a seed or seeds.
Potatoes are root crops - not fruit. Veggies can be other things than the material covering the seeds (bulbs like onion, roots like potatoes, leaves like lettuce or cabbage, stems like asparagus or flowers like broccoli) - fruits are always carrying the seeds of the crop.

Edit: Bungleau, on the tomato :D
I believe that botanically speaking it's a fruit - so is a watermelon, green pepper, eggplant, cucumber, and squash. Like I said a fruit is any fleshy material covering a seed or seeds. But horticulturally speaking, the tomato belongs to the veggies because it's annual and nonwoody.
Legally speaking, too, tomatoes are vegetables: In 1893, the United States Supreme Court ruled the tomato was a "vegetable" and therefore subject to import taxes. The suit was brought by a consortium of growers who wanted it declared a vegetable to protect U.S. crop development and prices. Fruits, at that time, were not subjected to import taxes and foreign countries could flood the market with lower priced produce.

Anyway, sorry for the off-topic - let's get back to the thread's subject....

[ 05-01-2003, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

"I wonder why the American legal system is being laughed at in most countries. At least when it comes to lawsuits and insurance cases."

Why yes willow we laugh, then we look behind us and see Australian lawyers *without conscience* with dollars in their eyes and frothing at the mouth and roll our eyes to the god of common sense and pray. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Seriously McDonalds AND the parents are both at fault. A kid offered an ice cream by his parents every day is not going to say no! It tastes good *I’ve been told* [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

But also McDonalds are guilty of using Frankenstein foods, in the oil they fry their chips/ fries in. A lot more fattening than anyone else would make.

One question I would like answered by our American members is this.
"Now the kids parents are suing McDonalds are they taking him to burger king everyday instead"? Now that they think McDonalds are responsible totally for his weight. :rolleyes: