"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:51:35 GMT, "Vox Humana"
> > scribbled some thoughts:
>
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >> Just makes me shake my head in amazement and despair. Why exercise some
> >> personal responsibility and self-control when you can sue somebody
> >> instead? I have no illusions about why I'm overweight--If there's
> >> something that's bad for me, I'm pretty sure to like it. But nobody
> >> ever forced me to go to McDonald's or Jack in the Box etc etc. Even
> >> without a specific calorie and fat analysis, I never kidded myself that
> >> I was eating healthfood, there. Even more than stopping people from
> >> making bad lunch choices which I view as being far too nanny-stateish,
> >> I wish people would stop looking on litigation as a form of recreation
> >> in this country. It's an expensive form of whining. Eat what you want,
> >> but be willing to accept the consequences of doing so.
> >>
> >
> >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.
> >
>
>
> But the proof also lies in the teenagers that they bought
> the food and also ate it. The teenagers probably have lack
> of willpower.

Willpower isn't an issue if the product is defective or if is deceptively
represented.