Need Help Suing McDonalds!

[~Shard~]

Skoker (or his parents) looked over the list of ingredients that McDo's is legally required to disclose, and saw nothing wrong.

How can any individual with an ounce of intelligence look at the ingredients in the "food" served at McDonald's and see nothing wrong? Wow, that's pretty bad.

I understand where people are coming from on the allergy front - it's a serious matter. However, to continue playing devil's advocate, as I have decided to do this thread I would still say that it's rather silly to be complaining about ingredients making you ill at McDonald's - it's McDonald's, it's crap for your body in general, what do you expect?

As I stated in an earlier post, if I buy a bottle of orange juice and drink it and there was arsenic in it as an undisclosed ingredient, I would be upset and sue. But if I buy a bottle of Liquid Drano and drink it and there's arsenic in it as an undisclosed ingredient, I'd feel like quite an idiot complaining, much less suing over that. An extreme example, sure, but it makes my point.

 

[Lau]

As I stated in an earlier post, if I buy a bottle of orange juice and drink it and there was arsenic in it as an undisclosed ingredient, I would be upset and sue. But if I buy a bottle of Liquid Drano and drink it and there's arsenic in it as an undisclosed ingredient, I'd feel like quite an idiot complaining, much less suing over that. An extreme example, sure, but it makes my point.

But Liquid Drano isn't cleared as safe to drink. McDonalds is.

 

[balamw]

So seems to me people know "hey, if I eat deep fried lard & sugar, I'll get sick" is about the same.

Super Size Me is very instructive in this respect. After a few days Morgan Spurlock throws up and says something to the effect of I feel like heck, but I still want more!

B

 

[~Shard~]

But Liquid Drano isn't cleared as safe to drink. McDonalds is.

And just because it's cleared as "safe to eat", McDonald's really is safe? Let me guess, because cigarettes are "cleared" they are safe for human use too.

 

[Lau]

And just because it's cleared as "safe to eat", McDonald's really is safe? Let me guess, because cigarettes are "cleared" they are safe for human use too.

No, but the difference is that if something is cleared as safe to consume as a food product, it should be. Even cigarettes aren't a good example because there are huge "Danger o' Death" warnings on the packets (in the UK, anyway). McDonalds (along with a lot of other junky food) is seen as 'safe', (unheathy, but safe) and so it has a responsiblity to be safe. If they are failing to disclose ingredients in their food when they give the impression of disclosing all of them that's wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I think McDonalds is about as far away from being food as you get, and I agree with you that anyone should be able to tell that it's crappy food, and isn't very good for you if you eat it very often. But not everyone's as clever as you. Not everyone's as well educated. If people think they can get a cheap meal (or feed their kids cheaply, before they can make the choice themselves) because they haven't been educated about good food the same way that you have, and/or they're just poor, and/or it's all they've got in the area, they are going to eat it, and assume that it isn't going to poison their kids, because there's nothing anywhere to say that it is. Then you're just saying that people who are too stupid and poor don't deserve to eat food that's safe, which is really wrong.

 

[jwp1964]

I do want something from them.


They do list the ingredients. They just 'omitted' milk and gluten so that vegan's would eat their fries.


Same here in the USA, the FDA found out and had a field day with McD's

You're kidding right...McDonald's is concerned about cornering the vegan French Fry eater market...THAT IS HILARIOUS!!!!!

jwp

 

[achie25]

Maybe I should sue them because due to them I have added maybe 20 extra pounds over a 20 span.

 

[balamw]

McDonalds (along with a lot of other junky food) is seen as 'safe', (unheathy, but safe) and so it has a responsiblity to be safe. If they are failing to disclose ingredients in their food when they give the impression of disclosing all of them that's wrong.

Define 'safe'. For the vast majority of consumers i.e. 95% or more of the American public (according to the 11 million number cited earlier). The product is safe. Unhealthy, but safe. And they have tested for the known allergens in the fries and not found them.

As C-RAM suggested it can take a lot to figure out what a person is allergic/sensitive to, and it might not be the thing you first suspect. Maybe skoker got sick because of something else he ate other than the fries. Maybe it was the fries, but not the dairy component.

Look around at the ingredients of pretty much anything you can find in the store. How often do you simply find. "Flavoring", "Seasoning" etc.... that is what is at issue here. The flavoring used in the oil used to cook the fries was derived from dairy and wheat, but the fries themselves do not test positive for the common dairy and wheat allergens. I believe McD has complied with their responsiblity to be safe to > 95% of their customers.

B

 

[~Shard~]

No, but the difference is that if something is cleared as safe to consume as a food product, it should be. Even cigarettes aren't a good example because there are huge "Danger o' Death" warnings on the packets (in the UK, anyway). McDonalds (along with a lot of other junky food) is seen as 'safe', (unheathy, but safe) and so it has a responsiblity to be safe. If they are failing to disclose ingredients in their food when they give the impression of disclosing all of them that's wrong.

I understand where you're coming from, and as I said, I decided to be more of a bastard in this thread just to make the thread more "entertaining".

I agree that it comes down to the simple legal issue of not disclosing important information, and that can be applied to many situations, even apart from food services. But looking past the objective legalities, you start to get into the whole argument of what you were referring to below...

Don't get me wrong, I think McDonalds is about as far away from being food as you get, and I agree with you that anyone should be able to tell that it's crappy food, and isn't very good for you if you eat it very often. But not everyone's as clever as you. Not everyone's as well educated. If people think they can get a cheap meal (or feed their kids cheaply, before they can make the choice themselves) because they haven't been educated about good food the same way that you have, and/or they're just poor, and/or it's all they've got in the area, they are going to eat it, and assume that it isn't going to poison their kids, because there's nothing anywhere to say that it is. Then you're just saying that people who are too stupid and poor don't deserve to eat food that's safe, which is really wrong.

Very well said, especially the last comment. I realize not everyone is educated on important things like their health and how to eat properly, and they definitely should not be penalized for their lack of knoweldge.

But does that still make it right and okay? Yes, we need to exercise compassion, decency and so forth in a situation like this, but to continue playing "the cold-hearted bastard" here, what makes me so different? If I can care enough about my health to do my research and figure out it's bad to eat at places like McDonald's, why can't other people? What's stopping them? It's not rocket science. And does it cost me any more to eat healthy? I would argue not. I can go down to the local family run sandwich shop, buy a fresh sandwich with natural ingredients and it's not going to cost me much mroe than eating at McDonald's. Is it hard to eat healthy? No, it's simple choices. Drink OJ or even just water instead of pop. Eat fresh sandwiches or whatever instead of burgers. Eat salad instead of fries (except for McDonald's salads which have a ton of sugar in them as well). Need a snack during the day? Eat an apple or an orange instead of a bag of chips or a chocolate bar. It's not hard.

I realize this is getting somewhat off topic, but I think it is an important topic to consider here nonetheless, as it over-arches the specific point at hand in my opinion. Perhaps I am straying into a completely different topic for discussion though....

 

[freeny]

I hate people like you who try to sue large companys. It really pisses me off. So you go sick from McDonalds food, tough ****. Get over it.

It's because of people like you that insurance is so high for smaller companys.

Unfortunately its a necessary evil. Without lawyers and lawsuits companies would walk all over the consumers. Its alot like unions have become. A long time ago unions were established to create a balance to companies who would cheat and neglect employees. If the company would try to screw the employees, the workers would refuse to work sending the screw right back at the company. Today, after many years of screwing each other, the workers and companies have come to a medium realizing they need each other. Unfortunately the unions still exist causing all sorts of waste trouble. If the unions evaporated it would only be a matter of time until the companies would be screwing the employees again. It comes down to greed and America doesnt have a monopoly on it. People screw each other all over the world every day. Its just Americans refuse to be screwed more than most of the world.

Also, someone who sues a company takes the risk of losing and ultimately costing them lots and lots of $$$. Mcdonalds didnt list a potentionally harmfull ingredient in their food. What would you say if tuna companies didnt disclose the fact that there is a high level of mercury in canned tuna. Lets say your child goes blind or even dies from this? Would you just "Get over it?" I dont think so.

If it was you in this situation I'm pretty sure you would be singing a whole different tune.

 

[dornoforpyros]

well skoker if you do good ahead with this you can know your doing your part to further america's status as the greatest country on on earth.

 

[skoker]

OK Skoker, you may deserve a small pay-off for the first couple of times, but let me undetstand something: you have been eating at the big M's for 13 years and feeling sick most of the time and yet you continued to eat there? I don't know about the US, but I am pretty sure that in the UK you'd get a tiny pay-off (OK enough for a new Mac), but nothing for the long-term..

If you'd have read the WHOLE thread, you would have saw that this is not the case.

 

[Lau]

Define 'safe'. For the vast majority of consumers i.e. 95% or more of the American public (according to the 11 million number cited earlier). The product is safe. Unhealthy, but safe. And they have tested for the known allergens in the fries and not found them... I believe McD has complied with their responsiblity to be safe to > 95% of their customers.

I think this is a good point. You can't cater to everyone, and it could be true that skoker did get ill from something else, especially as the tests on the fries have come up negative for general milkiness. However, I don't think this is the first time McDonalds hasn't disclosed something that is in their food that shouldn't be - weren't the fries fried in beef dripping yet "suitable for vegetarians", and similar stuff? I could be wrong though. I also think that due to their weird chemically food, there's stuff in there you might not expect - e.g if you were in a restaurant and asked for fries, and were vegan, you might think to ask whether or not the fries were fried in oil or dripping, but would you think to ask about milk based products? Ok, maybe as a vegan you might be used asking that. But would someone with a recently diagnosed milk allergy know to?

I think my (long-winded!) point is if McDonalds are going to put weird stuff you don't expect in our food, I'd like them to tell me about it!

I understand where you're coming from, and as I said, I decided to be more of a bastard in this thread just to make the thread more "entertaining".

Don't worry - I love a good debate.

... what makes me so different? If I can care enough about my health to do my research and figure out it's bad to eat at places like McDonald's, why can't other people? What's stopping them? It's not rocket science. And does it cost me any more to eat healthy? I would argue not. I can go down to the local family run sandwich shop, buy a fresh sandwich with natural ingredients and it's not going to cost me much mroe than eating at McDonald's. Is it hard to eat healthy? No, it's simple choices. Drink OJ or even just water instead of pop. Eat fresh sandwiches or whatever instead of burgers. Eat salad instead of fries (except for McDonald's salads which have a ton of sugar in them as well). Need a snack during the day? Eat an apple or an orange instead of a bag of chips or a chocolate bar. It's not hard.

Do you know what I think it is (apart from misinformation and lack of education)? I was thinking about this at the weekend, when I was buying a load of fruit and veg and fish and stuff and it cost me £30 bloody quid <grumbles>. I agree that you can go out and buy the basic ingredients to make a meal for probably the same as a McDonalds. Maybe even cheaper. But the ways that you make it tasty are expensive. Various seasonings, good cheese, nice fruit to put on plain museli, olive oil, garlic, herbs, all this stuff is expensive. Museli's pretty rank without any fruit or nuts on it. I can make a good bolognaise sauce - but the things that make it nice are the basil, and fresh black pepper, and extra tomato puree and maybe a splash of wine, and a bit of parmesan on top. The tinned tomatoes and onion and beef are affordable, but is the rest? And can you even get that stuff in a less well-off area? So you feed your kids a horrible bland tomato and beef sauce on pasta, and they (and you) think "Ugh - this is awful". And then McDonalds comes along, and suddenly there's this tasty cheap food, that the kids love, and keeps everyone full til bedtime. And it's only 30p more for a bit more, which is a great deal.

And yeah, sorry this is getting a bit off topic.

 

[skoker]

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 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.

You're completely missing the point. People know ahead of time that if they drink too much they're going to get sick. Skoker (or his parents) looked over the list of ingredients that McDo's is legally required to disclose, and saw nothing wrong. McDo's is required to list everything that goes into those french fries, even food coloring. They didn't list any milk products. If skoker really did have multiple hospital visits because of this, I think he deserves some sort of compensation. This is like a construction company not telling the workers that there's asbestos in the building, and the workers getting asbestosis 20 years later.

I would like to thank both of you for actually understanding what's been going on.

 

[~Shard~]

Don't worry - I love a good debate.

Good - as do I.

Do you know what I think it is (apart from misinformation and lack of education)? I was thinking about this at the weekend, when I was buying a load of fruit and veg and fish and stuff and it cost me £30 bloody quid <grumbles>. I agree that you can go out and buy the basic ingredients to make a meal for probably the same as a McDonalds. Maybe even cheaper. But the ways that you make it tasty are expensive. Various seasonings, good cheese, nice fruit to put on plain museli, olive oil, garlic, herbs, all this stuff is expensive. Museli's pretty rank without any fruit or nuts on it. I can make a good bolognaise sauce - but the things that make it nice are the basil, and fresh black pepper, and extra tomato puree and maybe a splash of wine, and a bit of parmesan on top. The tinned tomatoes and onion and beef are affordable, but is the rest? And can you even get that stuff in a less well-off area? So you feed your kids a horrible bland tomato and beef sauce on pasta, and they (and you) think "Ugh - this is awful". And then McDonalds comes along, and suddenly there's this tasty cheap food, that the kids love, and keeps everyone full til bedtime. And it's only 30p more for a bit more, which is a great deal.

Those are very good points. One thing I'll mention just for the sake of it, is that I know from my many visits to the UK how expensive everything is - perhaps that is a factor as well, as here in Canada, I can get 100% organic produce, grain-fed free-range chicken, and other healthy alternatives for pretty much the same price - a little more, yes, but not heaps more. I agree about the seasonings, etc., that all costs money, but here at least eating healthy doesn't break the bank. And of course I realize there are many people less fortunate, below the poverty line and such who can barely afford McDonald's as it is...

But again, this is all getting off topic and is a discussion for another debate. I'll try to stay on the topic at hand from now on.

 

[freeny]

well skoker if you do good ahead with this you can know your doing your part to further america's status as the greatest country on on earth.

You know all this America bashing is becoming quite a cliche as well as easy and predictable. Perhaps a comment containing some substance and real information as opposed to an inflamitory sarcastic stab would shine a better light upon yourself.

Im willing to bet a months salary that there is an equal percentage of Mcdonalds customers as well as people in lawsuits where you live in Canada.

 

[CanadaRAM]

The reason there is a stereotype is that the US court system allows for class action lawsuits, for lawyers to work on contingency (no up front costs, the law firm takes a - usually large - % of any settlement), and generally insulates plaintiffs from punitive costs in cases where the suit has no merit. Coupled with the trend that jury awards for punitive damages can be astronmically high when the defendent is a large corporation.

This makes it far easier to raise a lawsuit in the US than in Canada or the UK. This is a good thing in some cases (example being consumer protection cases like the one in the movie Erin Brockovich) but also has lead to the abuse of the process by plaintiffs and lawyers looking for a payday from a relativly frivolous complaint (my Nano gets scratched when I put it in my pocket with my keys! I'm going to sue!)

In Canada (and I think the UK) the court can award damages for costs to the defendent if the plaintiff loses. This is a significant disincentive to frivolous suits. So there is a real reason that the US has a reputation for being lawsuit happy.

In the McD case, it is entirely within the plaintiff's rights to use the existing court system to bring a case. Whether the case can be proved (ingredients+negligence=sickness+culpability) is a matter to be proved or not in court. Whether you or I think it will win, or whether the food at McD is worth eating anyway (somehow, I don't think "Everyone knows our food is swill" is a defence McD will use) -- is immaterial. If it passes the requirements for the court to hear the case, then Skoker has every right to pursue it.

 

[Melkor]

Unfortunately its a necessary evil. Without lawyers and lawsuits companies would walk all over the consumers. Its alot like unions have become. A long time ago unions were established to create a balance to companies who would cheat and neglect employees. If the company would try to screw the employees, the workers would refuse to work sending the screw right back at the company. Today, after many years of screwing each other, the workers and companies have come to a medium realizing they need each other. Unfortunately the unions still exist causing all sorts of waste trouble. If the unions evaporated it would only be a matter of time until the companies would be screwing the employees again. It comes down to greed and America doesnt have a monopoly on it. People screw each other all over the world every day. Its just Americans refuse to be screwed more than most of the world.

Also, someone who sues a company takes the risk of losing and ultimately costing them lots and lots of $$$. Mcdonalds didnt list a potentionally harmfull ingredient in their food. What would you say if tuna companies didnt disclose the fact that there is a high level of mercury in canned tuna. Lets say your child goes blind or even dies from this? Would you just "Get over it?" I dont think so.

If it was you in this situation I'm pretty sure you would be singing a whole different tune.

Well, I will hand it to you, you made some great points there. But I can't deny that I am pissed off by lots of peoples attitude towards suing these days. And it really gets me when people try and screw over small companies.


And to the thread starter: Please excuse my first post. Even though that does still express my sentiments on your situation, I shouldn't have posted it. I'm not used to posting on forums with mature people .

*moves to a less mentaly stimulating thread*

 

[balamw]

Ok, maybe as a vegan you might be used asking that. But would someone with a recently diagnosed milk allergy know to?

I think my (long-winded!) point is if McDonalds are going to put weird stuff you don't expect in our food, I'd like them to tell me about it!

But that's the problem for people with food allergies/sensitivity. For most people it's not "weird stuff" it's just food, but for those with allergies it's poison. So, even if you ask the right questions you can not be sure that the answer you get will be understandable or even correct. Milk allergies in particular are quite difficult to deal with since dairy derived ingredients (not just milk, cream, cheese, buttermilk, whey, but casein and tons of other ingredients that don't sound like milk) are commonly used to "enhance" products that could easily be made without dairy ingredients. The only way to have a reasonable expectation of "safe-ness" for someone with dairy sensitivity is to only buy products that are promoted as vegan, but even then mistakes are made.

Most people, my parents included, don't understand that it is not sufficient to "remove the cheese" from pizza before offering it to my son. If ever there was cheese in it, he will have a reaction.

I fully sympathize with skoker's condition, and the right for people to sue. I just don't think that the evidence in this case supports a lawsuit from anyone with food sensitivities.

BTW I previously referred to the McD and Pizza Hut debacles where beef derived ingredients were used in flavoring their otherwise "vegeterian friendly" products.

B

 

[dornoforpyros]

Im willing to bet a months salary that there is an equal percentage of Mcdonalds customers as well as people in lawsuits where you live in Canada.

No, I'm afraid my country isn't full of frivolous law suits that benefit no one. Yes, there is the occasionally one, but no where near the american culture of "lifes not fair, pay me"

Call it cliche' if you must, but there is a reason the rest of the world looks down it's nose at the USA.

 

[CanadaRAM]

No, I'm afraid my country isn't full of frivolous law suits that benefit no one. Yes, there is the occasionally one, but no where near the american culture of "lifes not fair, pay me"

Call it cliche' if you must, but there is a reason the rest of the world looks down it's nose at the USA.

Oh, I think that if Canadians had the Wide open US judicial system, there would be an adequate number of Canucks bellying up to the bar looking for a lottery win by jury. It's the system that's different here, not human nature.

 

[Mord]

Most people, my parents included, don't understand that it is not sufficient to "remove the cheese" from pizza before offering it to my son. If ever there was cheese in it, he will have a reaction.

that type of thing REALLY bugs me,

 

[skoker]

I am sick

...no longer caused by the food from McDonalds but by the arguing going on in this thread. If you are going to post arguing that food allergies are not a valid reason to list ingredients or are going to fight people who are just STATING FACT then please do not post in this thread!!

I've got people arguing with MY HEALTH!!! How in the hell do you do that?

 

[FoxyKaye]

Being allergic to several food items myself, namely dairy and peanuts, though not to the extent to which you've described, I get pissed when I find out something has these ingredients that weren't disclosed.

So what if McD is generally unhealthy food? So what if folks with food allergies aren't in the majority? Full disclosure still applies. It's like saying that the ADA shouldn't exist because there aren't enough disabled folks to justify its existence (folks in wheelchairs should expect that stairs are the norm, shouldn't they?). I think someone else sued, and won against, one of the big companies (McD, BK, ?) for not disclosing they were frying their french fries in animal fat.

I say go for it, heck, check the 'Net and see if anyone else has already started the process. Honestly, this is a more valid case than that which lead to the war on Iraq, I don't see what folks are fussing over. At least there's evidence here...

Get 'em!

Like no-one here has ever eaten candy bars or drank soda, beer or liquor, or ever lit up a cigarette

 

[balamw]

I am sick ... no longer caused by the food from McDonalds but by the arguing going on in this thread. If you are going to post arguing that food allergies are not a valid reason to list ingredients or are going to fight people who are just STATING FACT then please do not post in this thread!!

I've got people arguing with MY HEALTH!!! How in the hell do you do that?

See. I told you it wasn't the fries.

In all seriousness, here's some very good news, and a fact from the Mayo Clinic:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/food-allergies/AA00057

Beginning Jan. 1, 2006, a U.S. law called the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act has required complete ingredient label information to ensure that all major food allergens are disclosed and that the ingredients are listed in terms that are understandable to the average consumer.

In general, the new requirement takes the guesswork out of reading food labels — a powerful tool for people with food allergies. For example, if a product contains casein, a milk-derived protein, the product's label must list the term "milk" in addition to the term "casein." This way, people with food allergies can clearly identify and understand the presence of food allergens that they need to avoid.

Q&A from the FDA: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgqa.html

Unfortunately it's not retroactive.

EDIT: nor apparently fully inclusive. But it's better than nothing.

14. Are flavors, colors, and food additives subject to the allergen labeling requirements?

Yes. FALCPA requires that food manufacturers label food products that contain ingredients, including a flavoring, coloring, or incidental additive that are, or contain, a major food allergen using plain English to identify the allergens.

This would tend to imply that if a major food allergen (one of the 8 in the Q&A link) is below the level of detection in such an flavoring, it would still not be required to be on the label.

B