jadekitty24 said:
This sounds like crap to me, at the risk of sounding too harsh. Yes, McDonalds should fully disclose every ingredient in their products. I hear they are now, if so, what's the big deal?
The big deal is that, if they were negligent, they potentially caused real injury to perhaps 10's of thousands of people over a dozen years. The If and Potentially parts are yet to be proven, which is what a court of law is for.
If you are caught burgling houses, and the police find swag in your garage from 12 years of burgling houses, do you get off with saying "Right then, I won't do it anymore"?
Or how about this: Some yobbos cudgel you on the way home from work, and leave you tied up in a shed for two days. You miss work, and you seriously fear for your life. If they are caught, should they face criminal charges? Let's say they were hired by a company to put the hurt on you - should you have the right to sue for damages, pain, suffering, loss of income, and punitive damages?
What then is the difference then if a company is negligent and sells you adulterated food that lands you in the hospital attached to an intravenous for 2 days afraid of dying from uncontollable intestinal spasms?
I believe that you have to have ASKED for the nutritional information BEFORE you became ill and BEFORE you were aware of the problem in order to be eligible for any remuneration for medical expenses.
I don't think that is the standard, clayj. Couple of reasons; as one poster mentioned bfore, there are expectations as to what is in particular foods. Potatoes, yes. Rutabagas, no. Milk in fries? I think that would fall outside the reasonable threshold; esp. as McD has advertised "cooked in 100% vegetable oil" in the past. Also there are (in some juristictions, anyway) legal standards for the permissible contents of foods.
Second is that I have been in Mcdonalds where the nutritional information is posted on the wall or in a book. I have also asked for and received the info over the counter. So the information is published, and allegedly was false. The plaintiff could contend that they asked their (friend, parent) if it were safe and received information based on the false ingredient list that had been published. They need not have asked for it in person if it was already published.