viscousmemories

That's a really excellent point. And look how effectively their subtle technique has enabled them to recruit several people on this very thread to be their mouthpiece on the issue.
Absolutely. I really liked your sensible approach to the whole issue in your first post, too. Isn't a healthier society, overall and for the long term, what we should really be most concerned with?

vm

lisarea

You're misunderstanding my point.

The only lawsuits that have been won against the fast food purveyors had to do with willful misrepresentation of the content of their products.

As far as the more subtle misrepresentations, I believe that class action suits are a perfectly legitimate way to encourage public discourse on the issue. Do I believe that people deserve compensation for making bad choices? Of course not. I never said that, and I don't think I implied it, either.

However, we as a society need to establish what exactly our guidelines for acceptable behavior are. We do it all the time. This is not a matter of law. It's a matter of best practices. If a consumer feels that they've been harmed by the actions of a corporation, they have the right to ask for remuneration.

There are levels of manipulation here, as well.

Certainly, if McDonald's were adding rat poison or crack cocaine or something to their products, we'd see that as unacceptable. But is it unacceptable to market products containing beef fat as 'vegetarian'? We've established that it is not, through the lawsuits mentioned earlier in the thread. Is it acceptable to misrepresent the fat and calorie content of products? Again, no. Again, this has been established--or at least emphasized--by means of lawsuits mentioned earlier. Is it acceptable to allow obfuscation regarding the content of fast food? I don't know. We have labeling laws for foods you buy at a grocery store. Why not McDonald's? I believe they're supposed to make this available, but I'll reiterate: They do not.

Fast food purveyors use both subtle and non-subtle manipulation to represent their products as healthy and wholesome, even when they're not actively lying. Is this acceptable? Sure. Would it continue to be acceptable if they chose to represent their products as suitable substitutions for infant formula? That might seem extreme, but the fact is that there are fast food alternatives now to school lunches, being served in school cafeterias across the country. Furthermore, I can tell you from experience that many fast food places take great efforts to obfuscate, if not outright misrepresent, the content of their products.

By bringing these issues into the public arena, maybe we can help draw the lines as to what sort of behavior is acceptable and what's not.

I do not believe that individual lawsuits on obesity claims can or should be successful. I don't know enough about the childhood obesity one to comment on its merits or lack thereof.

However, I do think that this sort of action is a perfectly reasonable means of establishing public discourse on issues of corporate ethics.

And I never claimed that anyone was trying to make stupidity a crime. I'm simply responding to the pervasive attitude that stupid people somehow deserve to be punished due to a lack of intelligence.

viscousmemories

I disagree. I think that if you are overweight you most likely weren�t raised with healthy eating habits, and haven�t managed to learn them on your own. If nobody ever taught you how to read, would your illiteracy be your fault?
Fine, but do you know how bad it is? What�s wrong with making the companies make that information more accessible to the consumer? That�s ridiculous. How can you suggest that �raising kids right� guarantees that they�ll make the correct choices? In fact if I was going to just pull a statement out of my butt like that I�d be inclined to say that kids who are raised on �healthy� food would be more likely to overindulge in Big Macs when the parents aren�t looking over their shoulder.
I already addressed these points earlier, but I�ll do so again for the sake of continuity. Supply and demand isn�t so easily applied here. The people that go to fast food places do so, usually, because they want fast and inexpensive food. Just because they�ll eat whatever shit McD�s slops on the plate doesn�t necessarily mean they prefer it. As for your strength of will to resist the draw of fast food, congratulations. I�m not a big believer in willpower, though. In my experience people who find certain temptations easy to resist aren�t really very tempted to begin with. In other words, I doubt fast food has much of a draw for you. In any case, the fact that you aren�t affected by the advertising is not evidence that nobody is.
I don�t think you understood my OP. All I said was there are undeniable benefits to fast food and junk food purveyors improving on the healthiness of their offerings, and then asked if fear of litigation isn�t the ideal way to get them to do this, what is? Your supply and demand argument equates to saying that the fast food and junk food manufacturers will stop producing unhealthy trash and targeting their marketing efforts to kids if kids just stopped eating fast food and junk food. So how do you propose that we disinterest kids in eating exciting and unhealthy foods?
You really do purport to speak on behalf of humanity an awful lot. Are you really so certain that nobody wants a Jack Russell burger?
Oh please. How you do contradict yourself. If it�s such a tragic loss of freedom that we can�t be allowed to eat 500 calorie death burgers at the cost of the health of our youth, why is it completely acceptable, in your opinion, that you can�t go order a dog burger at the local restaurant. You know, people do eat dog in the world. The culinary attitude of Americans is not representative of the entire universe. So if a naturalized immigrant from a country where dog is a common dish wants to have a Jack Russell burger, who are we to deny him his rights?

vm

girlwriter

And you misunderstood mine. I was responding to your question/statement:

"Do we really want to advocate this "Stupidity should be painful" philosophy as a rule? [...]maybe a little corporate responsibility might be in order[...]regardless of what's legal but stupidity is not a crime." (emphasis added)

Your wording did indeed suggest that you were arguing against the idea that stupidity is a crime. If you did not mean to suggest anyone was saying that stupidity is a crime, what on earth were you reponding to?

My point is that your statement suggests that people who assert that we are ultimately responsible (ie, have to live with the consequenses,) for our own actions are criminalizing stupidity. That is not what is happening. It is my observation that it is folly to believe that we can escape natural consequenses. The world is full of natural consequenses. The natural consequenses of eating junk is an unhealthy body. No amount of trying to pin the blame on others will change that. No amount of fear of lawsuits will change that. No amount of legislation will change that. But those things do have negative consequenses on all of our lives.

boingo82

I like the idea of healthier food and nutrition information being more readily available, but there's one thing I strongly object to in that article:
This just makes it sound like I'll be paying the same $$ for less Cream of Wheat.

girlwriter

VM, slow down. You're making a lot of unfounded assumtions about me here, and your tone is pretty hostile. You brought this up, and I think you could have guessed people would disagree with you.

Well, my initial statement is somewhat of an overgeneralization. It is true that *many* people grow up in our culture without a clue how to eat right. That is the fault of thier parents. And at some point, yes, it does become the fault of the individual. We all begin adulthood with some holes in our upbringing. When we enter into adulthood, we inherit the responsability of compensating. Your body, your responsability. I think your statement is an overgeneralization as well. There are many reasons for poor eating habits. The fact is, you are most likely to eat what you grew up eating, but many people overeat for much more complex reasons. And they don't really involve brainwashing by Corporate America most of the time.

Fine, but do you know how bad it is? What�s wrong with making the companies make that information more accessible to the consumer?

Yes, I do. I think most adults do. I never said there was anything wrong with product labeling. I would be fine with that.
That�s ridiculous. How can you suggest that �raising kids right� guarantees that they�ll make the correct choices? In fact if I was going to just pull a statement out of my butt like that I�d be inclined to say that kids who are raised on �healthy� food would be more likely to overindulge in Big Macs when the parents aren�t looking over their shoulder.

Well, you just suggested that the reason kids eat badly is because thier parents taught them to. Which is it? Make up your mind. And if you are going to pull that statement out of your butt, (or anywhere else,) you'd be wrong. People tend to like and eat what thier parents fed them growing up. My mom rarely fed us fast food, sugar cereal, cookies, soda, etc. I begged for them as a kid, and indulged whenever I could, but upon reaching adulthood I grew out of it very quickly. I never have any of those things in my house, (except sodas for guests.) I'm sure there are people who react as you suggest, in fact I know one, but in the case of my friend, that is more of a control issue than a taste issue. Most of the time she eats very healthy food.

Supply and demand isn�t so easily applied here. The people that go to fast food places do so, usually, because they want fast and inexpensive food. Just because they�ll eat whatever shit McD�s slops on the plate doesn�t necessarily mean they prefer it.

Supply and demand is very easily applied here. They prefer it fast and cheap. That is a higher priority for fast food consumers than nutrition value or flavor. If our priorities were in the reverse order, McD's would be out of business. (or serving something else.) If you know anything at all about cooking healthy, tasty food, you know that it is much harder to do cheaply and quickly. Fresh spinach costs more than hamburger buns, calorie for calorie.

No, fast food does not have a draw for me, but I do have my demons, and they are very difficult to resist. Still, I'm trying, because ultimately I am the one who is responsible for what goes into my body, and I am the one who has to live with the consequenses of being overweight. I am affected by advertizing, and a certainly didn't mean to imply that no one is. I do feel, however, that it is quite possible for most adults and many children to approach it with the same critical thought process that leads you to reject what the xians are selling, and come to the conclusion that you don't need it.

I understood your OP. What is it? Stop buying that crap, and they'll be forced to either give up or sell something else.
Yes.
Raise them on healthy foods. Provide them with a nutritious, tasty alternative. It it's quite feasible. I've seen it done numerous times.
No, I do not, and your aggressive tone is offensive. I thought we were talking about this country, in which it would not be possible for a business to make money selling dog-burgers, because there simply is little to no demand for them. If you can't even stay on the point, then there isn't much point in debating with you.
Get off your intellectual superiority box, VM, I'm quite aware of the fact that people in other cultures eat dog. And, yes, I'm aware that some of those people live here. Point is, eating dog is taboo in our culture, and there isn't enough demand for McDonalds to serve it. It's not a matter of not having the freedom to serve or order it. It's a matter of not having the demand to support it as a business practice. 500 calorie burgers, OTOH, are very popular in this culture, so McD's sells 'em. They should be allowed to do so, and people should be allowed to buy them. Once they do, they are responsible for the natural consequenses of that decision. That's all I'm saying. If you want to start another thread about whether they should be allowed to sell dog burgers, then do so.
And if a naturalized citezen wants to be able to order dog-burgers at a convenience food purveyor, he shouldn't have moved to this country where dog burgers are not readily avilable. See? Natural consequenses. And please, don't go reading all kinds of things into that regarding my attitudes towards people of other cultures in the US. I'mjust talking about dog-burgers, here.

VM, it seems like your goal in starting this thread was to post your original questions and have people agree with you or else. Not very sporting of you, IMO.
edited to apologize for my accidental use of bold instead of quotes in parts of this post. Not terribly slick with the computer. My fault.

lisarea

As a rule, I'm generally pretty precise about what I'm saying. As such, I'd prefer that the relevant text be left intact, without excessive elision. That up there sounds downright hebephrenic.

Here's what I said:

Had I been actually opposing some kind of pending stupidity legislation, I would have happily voiced my opinion on that matter. Yes, for the record, I would oppose such a measure were one to be proposed.

I think it's a very important to understand the difference between criminal and civil matters. We are not talking about criminal law here, and I can assure you that my reading comprehension is sufficient that I did not literally believe that anyone was introducing or suggesting legislation outlawing stupidity.

The statement 'stupidity is not a crime' is meant in a far more general sense than the simple observation that there are no actual laws, to my knowledge, against being stupid; and frankly, I'm surprised that anyone would interpret it as such.

When I say 'stupidity is not a crime,' I mean to address the general attitude that I see all too often--even in this very thread--that if you are stupid enough to be fooled, then you deserve what you get.

This argument really pervades the issue, in fact. If you're injured as a result of eating fast food, you deserve what you get. Similarly, lonely old people who are stupid enough to give their money to televangelists and other con men deserve what they get. People who fall for pyramid schemes or 419 scams or psychic hotlines or any of a million other scams designed specifically to prey on the weakest and most defenseless members of our society deserve what they get, precisely because they're stupid, weak, naive, and defenseless.

Another common thread is that, in cases like these, there is some degree or another of deception involved. This ranges from outright shell-game style confidence schemes and extortion to more subtle methods, including misrepresenting the contents of fast food products, to obfuscation, to simple manipulation and propaganda. If it were simply a matter of competent people (by this I mean adults) choosing to ignore the facts, that'd be one thing. But that is not the issue, as near as I can tell. The issue is with corporations misrepresenting their products and marketing very directly to children.

The point of the civil litigation regarding such matters as childhood obesity is not to make cheeseburgers illegal, nor is it to somehow scapegoat the fast food industry for the acts of individual adults. The point is to address the question, "How far can we allow this industry to manipulate the facts in the name of a buck?" Without the particulars of the case, I don't have an informed opinion on what I think the right thing to do in this case is. But I definitely do think that it's a valuable exercise to examine these things and determine just what we will accept and what we won't.

Is it inappropriate for junk food purveyors to provide their empty calories as alternatives to middle school lunches IN SCHOOL CAFETERIAS? I would say yes, that's inappropriate. Will they understand this if I write them a letter and tell them why what they're doing is wrong? No. That is precisely why we need cases like this, where the issue is brought to the forefront of discussion, and where these corporations can see, in terms they understand, that what they're doing is wrong. And the only terms they understand are monetary.

If you intend to address other issues, please feel free to cite them. Yes, there is one lawsuit I'm aware of where an individual is attempting to sue fast food purveyors, blaming them for his obesity. He has not won this suit, nor is he likely to. And I have already mentioned that I don't think he should.

The existing judgements against fast food purveyors have not been specifically related to obesity, but to the fact that these organizations were intentionally misrepresenting the contents of their products. I support those decisions as well.

My biggest concern with things like this, in fact, is that there's this notion out there that we live in some kind of horribly litigious society, and that somehow, plaintiffs lawyers are responsible for all of this. However, it seems that the same things are always cited as examples of our litigiousness.

Usually, it's the McDonald's hot coffee case and the Twinkie defense. Both cases are grossly misrepresented in these arguments, and neither provides any evidence of any kind of trend that would justify such sweeping changes to our legal system.

If frivolous litigation against Corporate America is such a horrible plague on our society that it actually calls for such extensive tort reform, then why the hell can't anyone seem to point to some real cases that illustrate just how bad it is?

seebs

It's curious to me that this comes up, because I'm suing junk faxers, and they're using the image of some guy just trying to seek out damage claims as a sort of hand-waving defense.

MortalWombat

Food manufacturing companies have been doing this for years already. Although they haven't been using the excuse of public health to do so until now.

Stephen Maturin

That sort of thing happens all the time. It's the last refuge (sometimes the only refuge) of a defendant who knows s/he's in the wrong and has no substantive defense. How did that hearing go?