portisizzle Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 On page 183 of the May 2005 edition of the Reder's Digest I found a most illuminating legal notice. Here is the notice.... Attention McDonald's Customers McDonald's has searched for ways to reduce trans fatty acids in our foods cooked with oil. On September 3, 2002, we announced a voluntary initiative to reduce TFA's by using a new cooking oil. When we were delayed in changing to the new cooking oil, we announced that delay on February, 2003. Since then, we have changed the cooking process for Chicken McNuggets and McChicken and Crispy Chicken sandwiches, which reduce TFA's in those items. To avoid any confusion, McDonald's announces again that the cooking oil for its French Fries, hash browns, and Filet-O-Fish has not yet been changed. We continue to work on the initiative to reduce TFA's in our foods cooked with oil. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING LEGAL NOTICE The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Martin has preliminarily approved a settlement of twolawsuits against McDonald's. The law suits relate to TFA levels in McDonald's foods cooked with oil. The claims those suits relate to: 1) the effectiveness of McDonald's communication about the status of its TFA initiative; 2) McDonalds public statements about this initiative; 3) the implementation or delay of this initiative; and 4) TFA levels in McDonald's foods cooked with oil. The lawsuits allege a violation of every state's consumer protection laws and fraud, breach of contract, negligence, breach of warranty, strict product liability, and battery. McDonald's has agreed to settle these lawsuits, but continue to deny vigorously that it violated any law. What are the Principal terms of the Settlement? In exchange for a broad release of the Claims, McDonald's has agreed to: 1)donate $7 million to the American Heart Association.... 2)spend at least $1.5 million notifying McDonald's customers about the delay in changing the cooking oil: 3) pay legal fees, costs and expenses of Plaintiff's counsel in an amount not to exceed $2 million ___________________________________________________ If this thread gets some traction, I will continue the legal notice that includes legal rights of a Class Member, how to exclude yourself from the class action, object to the settlement, and etc. I am curious as to your opinions about this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 My opinion is if people don't want to eat unhealthy food, then they should not eat it. If McDonalds food is unhealthy, and I decide to eat it, it is my responsibility, not McDonalds. Just another example of people deferring responsibility for their poor decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidenreich Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I love McDonald's That being said, I know it's AWFUL for me. Because of that, I don't eat it every day, I don't eat it every week. Just looking at the greasy box when I'm done with a double quarter pounder, you know what you just did to yourself...... There's no need for class action lawsuits. And it's dopes like these people that make it so I can't get super sized fries anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Let's see.... Company who is known to make unhealthy food advertises that they changed their process to make their food less unhealthy. Company says a year later, actually we never carried out that promised change, but we will. Company implements the promised change for some of their food, but not for others, including one of their major sellers (fries). State says the company should be forced to advertise the accurate state of their initiative and be punished for past practice. Sounds like the state did a good thing. McD should not be allowed to advertise that their food is healthier than it used to be unless it is actually true. I have no problem with that principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Shockingly rational reply, bearrock. I'm not party to the intricacies of the case, so I don't know if they were guilty or not. But at least read up on it a bit before making knee-jerk reactions. http://www.ap-foodtechnology.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=53479-mcdonalds-in-court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I agree with AtB and bearrock, good for Cali. BTW, watch "Supersize Me", the documentary where a normal guy ate McDonalds foor for 30 days straight and tell me there is not something wrong with their food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Suing mcdonalds for being fat is stupid. Suing mcdonalds because they failed to implement an initiative they said they advertised is the responsibility of every consumer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. Suing mcdonalds for being fat is stupid. Suing mcdonalds because they failed to implement an initiative they said they advertised is the responsibility of every consumer. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Super Size Me is a joke. http://www.techcentralstation.com/supersizecon.html :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by MaddogCT Super Size Me is a joke. http://www.techcentralstation.com/supersizecon.html :logo: Gee what a suprise. . . a conservative site is pro business Actually, this is a real bad site, because it tries to be a legitimate site, but the bias in in all of their articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics Gee what a suprise. . . a conservative site is pro business Actually, this is a real bad site, because it tries to be a legitimate site, but the bias in in all of their articles. No mention of the stats though? Supersize me was an attempt to basically die. If your going to eat there EVERYDAY everymeal the least you can do is attempt to get the McSalad ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. Suing mcdonalds for being fat is stupid. Suing mcdonalds because they failed to implement an initiative they said they advertised is the responsibility of every consumer. Agreed, companies can't advertise and imply they their food are healthier when in fact they are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by Thiebear No mention of the stats though? Supersize me was an attempt to basically die. If your going to eat there EVERYDAY everymeal the least you can do is attempt to get the McSalad ... If I remember correctly, he DID eat a McSalad a few times, the only problem is that the McSalad is just as bad :laugh: 1/4 lb. hamburger 430 calories 21g fat Chef Salad w/Ranch Dressing 330 calories 26g fat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by bearrock Let's see.... Company who is known to make unhealthy food advertises that they changed their process to make their food less unhealthy. Company says a year later, actually we never carried out that promised change, but we will. Company implements the promised change for some of their food, but not for others, including one of their major sellers (fries). State says the company should be forced to advertise the accurate state of their initiative and be punished for past practice. Sounds like the state did a good thing. McD should not be allowed to advertise that their food is healthier than it used to be unless it is actually true. I have no problem with that principle. This sums up my position. On a side note, there is a McDonalds right next to where I work. Some of my co-workers eat there regularly. They have apparently been under the false assumption they changed the oil for everything over there due to information presented by this McDonalds. I printed out the first part of this thread about the settlement and posted it in the break room. THEY ARE PISSED!! They seriously thought ALL of the oil had been changed. One of them is going to talk to the manager at lunchtime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 and then get a happy meal.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpoch Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I agree with the false advertising aspect of the lawsuit. But c'mon, it's still FRIED FOOD no matter how healthy the oil is. To think eating at McDonalds is a "healthy" food choice is just ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
js161 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 you have to be an idiot to think your eating health if you go to McDonalds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 No question that fried food sucks for you. But transfats (partially hydrogenated oils) are way worse than just bad for you. They are close to poison. McD deserves what it gets here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by RonJeremy This sums up my position. On a side note, there is a McDonalds right next to where I work. Some of my co-workers eat there regularly. They have apparently been under the false assumption they changed the oil for everything over there due to information presented by this McDonalds. I printed out the first part of this thread about the settlement and posted it in the break room. THEY ARE PISSED!! They seriously thought ALL of the oil had been changed. One of them is going to talk to the manager at lunchtime... I will be curious as to the response.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics I agree with AtB and bearrock, good for Cali. BTW, watch "Supersize Me", the documentary where a normal guy ate McDonalds foor for 30 days straight and tell me there is not something wrong with their food. Even if there is something wrong with the food, nobody made anyone eat it. If you had to see Super Size Me to know there's something wrong with the food from McDonalds, you've been living in a cave for 30 years. That said, misleading the public about the nutrition of said food is not cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Originally posted by portisizzle I will be curious as to the response.. They said the Manager did a lot of stuttering, uhmm, etc. and took their name and number so the Regional Manager could contact them. Typical passing of the buck... Stay Tuned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 Wow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 In this case, it seems that McDonalds might have violated their contract with their customers. Further, such actions as breach of contract can only be solved through intrusive regulations with all their inherit loopholes or through the court system that often decides things not upon the merits of the case but who gets the best lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Makes me hungry for Mcdonalds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Originally posted by bpoch I agree with the false advertising aspect of the lawsuit. But c'mon, it's still FRIED FOOD no matter how healthy the oil is. To think eating at McDonalds is a "healthy" food choice is just ignorant. Originally posted by js161 you have to be an idiot to think your eating health if you go to McDonalds. I don't think many people are so deluded as to think it's "healthy." But trans-fatty acids can do major damage to people who are susceptible to high cholesterol and liver problems--much worse than what your regular ol' saturated fats do. Eliminating those would be a big step, and telling people that you eliminated them without doing so would be a major no-no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.