In 1992, Stella Liebeck burned herself on McDonald's coffee. The 79-year-old from New Mexico had the coffee sitting between her thighs when she removed the lid to add cream and sugar. When she removed the lid, she spilled the coffee on her lap and received extensive scalding burns. She sued McDonald's because their coffee was "too hot."
In August of 2002, the Pelman family of New York sued McDonald's for not disclosing their nutritional information plainly and clearly and causing their daughters to become obese. Jazlyn Bradley, a 19-yr-old involved in the lawsuit, said that her regular diet included an Egg McMuffin in the mornings and a Big Mac meal at dinner. Ashley Pelman had a taste for Happy Meals, and ate them three to four times a week. Despite the obvious detriment to anyone's health that burgers and deep-fried potatoes cause, Bradley's father claimed "I always believed McDonald's was healthy for my children."
In 2003, Judge Robert Sweet in New York threw out a case brought by Ceasar Barber which also blamed McDonald's (as well as Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Wendy's) for his poor health. He claimed that because of their food, he, as well as others involved in this class-action suit, suffered from high cholesterol, coronary heart disease, obesity and diabetes.
These three examples of lawsuits brought against McDonald's and similar corporations showcase the scapegoating that overly litigious Americans with no sense of responsibility turn to when they have no one to blame but themselves.
You Can't Be Trusted
Fast-forward to 2010 when, surprise surprise, San Francisco essentially bans Happy Meals from being sold in the city. Requiring meals that include toys to meet specific nutritional criteria, specifically having less than 600 calories (35% or less of which from fat) and less than 640 milligrams of sodium, half a cup of fruit or three-quarters cup of vegetables, puts McDonald's and other fast-food locations in quite a bind.
On the surface, it's a nice noble gesture to protect children from obesity and marketing. But when you dig deeper, it's actually a government regulation to protect children from what San Francisco believes must be horribly inept parents. It's actually quite offensive when you stop to think about it. What they think they're saying is: We don't trust corporations to the do the right thing. What they're really saying is: We don't trust you to make the right choice. The illusion of freedom isn't very comforting.*
Frivolity, Thy Name is Lawsuit
And that brings us to that other titular frivolous lawsuit. Apparently, McDonald's is such a powerful force in the life of Monet Parham of Sacramento, California, and her two children that she essentially needs a restraining order because she just can't function as long as McD's is in her life. (As tempted as I am to draw a correlation between the fact that she works for the bankrupt state of California and is probably looking at a lay-off and the timing of her lawsuit, I won't...)
"We have to say no to our kids so many times and McDonald's makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat." The lawsuit continues by suggesting that McDonald's is engaging in sleazy, illegal marketing techniques and that they have a responsibility to essentially parent your children. They compare McDonald's to tobacco companies, the latter of which can't market to children.
Let's take this one step at a time:
Saying No. Saying no is part of being a parent. If McDonald's of all things is making that hard for you, your issue is much larger than a toy being sold together with a cheeseburger.
Marketing Without Permission. Most people who are presented with McDonald's marketing experience it in their own homes on television. When you plop your kid in front of a TV set, you give McDonald's, as well as a slew of other companies, permission to advertise to your child. It is your responsibility to monitor what they come into contact with, not the advertiser.
Sleazy, Illegal Marketing Techniques. They equate what McDonald's is doing what tobacco companies are not allowed to do. Fast food isn't illegal; smoking under the age of 18 is. I shouldn't even need to clarify how completely different these two things are and how one clearly isn't illegal. Oh, unless you live in San Francisco, of course.
Corporations Parenting Your Children. It's not their job. That's your job. If you don't want your child eating a Happy Meal, you don't drive them through McDonald's. It's that simple.
It's Common Sense, People
You don't put a flimsy paper cup full of scalding hot coffee between your thighs and expect it to be stable. You don't eat cheeseburgers and deep-fried potatoes every day and assume you're going to be healthy. You don't feed your kids food you don't want them to eat.
When will people stop blaming everyone else for their own shortcomings? Do we all really need to be paid indecent sums of money for being incompetent at taking care of ourselves?
*Thankfully, and surprisingly (though maybe not surprisingly; California has a record of ignoring votes), Mayor Gavin Newsome vetoed the bill in November.
Well done
ReplyDeleteI agree.
ReplyDelete