Vox Humana wrote:

> The issue as I understand it is that Mc Donald's made misleading claims
> about their food, and the advertising that delivered the claims was targeted
> to teenagers. They will have to prove this. They have already convinced a
> court that the case has enough merit to proceed. I don't see a big issue
> here. It's not like the food industry has never adulterated food or engaged
> in false advertising or deceptive practices. When does an industry achieve
> a position where they can't be sued and who decides? Is the general public
> responsible for ignoring false advertising? Should children know that
> eating at McDonalds is bad for you? I think it will be an interesting case.
> Hopefully people won't distort the facts like they always do with the
> McDonald's litigation resulting from burns from insanely hot coffee.

I would suggest that the issue is the amount of McDonalds food you would have to
eat to get fat. Nobody gains a few pounds from eating a Big Mac and and order of
fries. They got fat because they ate too much of the stuff. One of the
complainants was reported to be 5'6" and 270 lb. That is one hell of a lot of
burgers and fries. The complaint is that McDonalds failed to provide free,
easily understood nutritional information about its fast food.

In order to make their case, the complainants should be required to provide the
court with documentation of the food they have been eating for the past few
years. For all we know, they could have been stuffing themselves with soda pop
and chocolate bars, and may never have been in the golden arches.