viscousmemories

No problem, girlwriter. I appreciate your apology, and I�m sorry too for having been as abrasive as I was. I�m just sensitive to ridicule, and tend to reveal my unsightly fangs when I feel I�ve been intentionally provoked. I hope we can get past it and move on.
Pretty much, except in my opinion we don�t really have to limit our focus to fast food companies. As far as I�m concerned, the societal impact of any �frivolous� lawsuits is equally relevant. I think lisarea said it best with: �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.�
Sure, I think it would be a good thing if companies that produce fast food and junk food made an effort to make the food more healthy. They spend billions on flavor research and development, I suspect that if they cared at all about the health of their products consumers they could make a Big Mac that tastes just as good with substantially less sodium and saturated fat, for example. But the fact that I see the potential upside in this particular scenario doesn�t necessarily mean that I think �frivolous� lawsuits are a great thing, or that limitations put on consumer choice are necessarily a good think either.
I agree.
Right.
That�s not the only question I have about this whole thing, but yes, it�s definitely one of them.
I can see your point, but I disagree with your assessment of the situation. We�re not talking about every member of society shirking personal responsibility and suing fast food companies, thereby forcing them to make positive changes. We�re talking about a tiny fraction of people shirking their personal responsibility, thereby forcing these gigantic, nearly untouchable corporations to make changes that benefit everyone. I�ll reiterate again that I don�t really know where I stand on this issue and all the related issues, but I will also reiterate that if the end result is beneficial to the majority, where�s the real harm? Is your desire to have a 500 calorie death-burger more important to you than the health of the next generation? Not that there�s anything necessarily wrong with that if it is, I�m just curious to know your rationale.
Seemed clear to me. Of course I might be way off the mark myself, so I�m not one to judge.

vm

girlwriter

No Problem.
I do see your point here, and I'm not trying to argue that there is no benefit. Clearly, there is, but I'm more interested in whether the benefits outwiegh the costs. If the benefit to society is small and the cost great, then there is a net loss to society. It's pretty clear by now that IMO, the benefits don't outweigh the costs. Maybe what they are doing is wrong, but it's not a crime, and they answer to thier own conscious, and what the market demands. I'll go ahead and stick to the fast food example for simplicity's sake, but I think the principals can be generally applied.
I think needs to be said that it's not really flavor that these companies are spending their billions trying to perfect. Like any good business, fast food companies spend money trying to determine not what tastes the best, but what *sells* the best, given thier target market. Let's face it, if it was just flavor they were after, they'd be serving filet minon with bernaise, and roasted garlic mashed potatoes.

I know it seems like I'm straying from the point here, but if you'll indulge me, I think this is important. McDonald's, for instance, targets the middle and lower economic classes, and in particular children and families - a very large and stable market. They have determined through research, trial, and error what those people will and will not buy, how fast they want it, and how much they will pay for it. The product that they sell is designed to appeal to middle to low income families based on these priorities. It is fast, relatively cheap, and tastes decent. A key point here is that it is also very cheap to produce. Obviously, this means that the business gets to make money. And it's also important to realize that the markup isn't as outrageous as it seems. I would venture to guess that the burger you pay $3.00 for cost around $.05 in actual materials, but don't forget advertising, packaging, and armies of teenagers flipping burgers and asking if you want fries with that. So you end up with *cheap* food, that frankly doesn't taste so good.

And here's a little cooking secret: (OK, not so secret.) Fat and salt enhance flavor. Basicly McDonald's relies almost soley on salt and fat, and simple carbs to provide flavor. So if they want to lower the fat and salt quantities, they have to up the quality of the meat, bun and trimmings. Then they have to charge more, and therefore price out a lot of people, so now they have a smaller target market.

The point I'm creeping towards, here, is that what fast food companies *care* about, is running a profitable business. It is not their job (or thier responsability) to make sure the masses are healthy, it is their job (and thier right and responsability) to make money. So what they sell is a reflection of what people buy, not the other way around. I think that a much more effective and less costly way to improve the nutritional value of the foods that are offered by FFF's is for *society* to change it's priorities. We as consumers have placed a higher value on cheap, convenient food than we have on nutritious, tasty food.

If we do not do this, then we have not solved the problem. McDonald's can go completely altruistic (or completely paranoid of lawsuits,) and only serve nutritious food, but as long as the market demands cheap, convenient food, someone will fill that niche.
Well, if the end result was truely beneficial to society, that is, the benefits to the majority outweigh the harm to the majority, I might be on board, but I don't think that they do. Don't forget, our government was specifically designed to protect the rights of the minority, not the majority. What about the rights of business owners to make money selling a product that people want, even if it's bad for them? What about the consumer's right to decide for him/herself what to consume? What about the economic benefit to society that is a result of diversity of choice? The majority loses overall when we lose our rights to "frivolous" litigation.

Personally, I would love to see McDonald's go away, because I find their whole image inane, I hate the comercials, I think the restraunts are an eyesore, I think they're an environmental nightmare, and as a foodie, I find their food to be an affront to the palate. But that's just my NSHO.

That said, I think there's a fine line, and you don't always know which lawsuits are frivolous and which important until much later. For instance, I think the Newdow trial was extremely important, many people think it was frivolous. I think the best thing is for individuals to take responsability for thier lives. Sometimes that means not eating a deathburger no matter how much you want it, sometimes it means suing for the right to not say the pledge. It's a balancing act that we all must engage in on a daily basis.

Laci

Listen up! Why don't the fast food restaurants put fat and unsaturated fat labels on each of their products. Eventually people might read them and look into why too much fat is a serious medical problem and causes obesity.


What they're doing is becoming our Mothers. This is an insult to those of us who do watch our saturated fats and when we can afford a big juicy hamburger, we want one. Not some dried out piece of meat!

If you all would go to http://www.olen.com/food/
and print it up or keep it on your desktop for reference. It might help you decide what you should eat from those fast food restaurants.

:boohoo:

viscousmemories

Sorry for the delayed response�

I agree completely that the value of things should be measured by whether or not the benefit outweighs the cost. But I think the jury�s still out (no pun intended) on this one. Of course you�re right that these companies aren�t acting illegally, but that�s why we�re discussing whether or not fear of litigation is a useful motivator.

If you have ever worked for a large corporation I�m surprised you expect such an entity to act with a conscience. The absolute objective of every corporation is profit-making. As we know from history, without labor laws companies would literally work their employees (young and old) to death giving them as little reward as possible in an effort to be more profitable. Are you in favor of getting rid of the minimum wage and restrictive child labor laws? After all, those laws also inhibit a corporations ability to fully give the consumers what they demand, right?


I agree completely. Which again makes me wonder where you think a �conscience� comes into play at all. Again, as lisarea said and we all seem to agree on, the only languages corporations understand are legal and economic. Since it�s not against the law for them to make substandard fare that�s ultimately unhealthy for our whole society (which is a key point to me; This isn�t about the occasional obese person, this is about a social epidemic that is directly, negatively impacting the productivity of the citizenry) then seemingly the only other way to get their attention is through litigation.

I�m not so much concerned with your straying from the point as I am not really sure what point you�re making here. The middle and lower classes make up the majority of the population, don�t they? (I really don�t have any idea, but it seems logical) So I�m not sure why you�re bringing up this information.

As an aside of my own, however, for an in-depth look behind the scenes at the fast food industry I recommend �Fast Food Nation�. It�s a really excellent book, and the information within is fascinating. Another interesting aside (to me) is the fact that (or so I�ve heard) the vast majority of McDonald�s revenue comes not from food, but from real estate. See, they rent their buildings to their franchisees. I�m pretty sure, in fact, that McDonalds is the largest landlord in the world. (Not positive about that one, but I�m pretty sure)

I understand your reasoning, but I disagree. One thing that I learned from that Fast Food Nation book is that they can do nearly miraculous things with chemically engineered flavors. I�m convinced that they could use that R&D money to make a healthier yet equally tasty product. As you said, though, they are not motivated by a desire to make a healthier product, they�re motivated to make a product that sells. So as long as nobody is pushing them, they can spend their billions on test marketing the next McRib or McRussell (hehe) instead of working on something that might actually benefit the unfortunate victims of their products.

Again I have to ask if you think that the minimum wage and child labor laws should be repealed so corporations aren�t being further bullied into limiting their potential for profit.

Sure, it would be great if everyone just decided tomorrow to lead a healthier lifestyle and start eating natural foods instead of processed garbage. But we have to deal with the reality of the situation as it is. I agree that the fast food companies and their product line evolved to meet the demands of the consumers. But as that evolution was taking place, so was a growing awareness of the dangers of unhealthy foods. I�m not blaming the fast food companies for the situation our society is in now. I don�t think blame is even important. But it is undeniable, IMO, that we have a serious problem in our country today and it needs to be addressed. Since we are such a freedom-centric culture, there�s no way we�re going to pass a law demanding that the food giants produce healthier fare, there�s no chance corporations are going to risk their profit margin by making radical changes to their menu, and there�s no way every American is going to stop eating Big Mac�s tomorrow. So if we agree that something has to change (and I think we must agree on that if we look at the statistics re: the average American�s healthfulness) then how do we effect that change?



At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I�m all about freedom too. But we already have many laws that restrict the behavior of corporations to protect their employees and consumers. This total freedom to make a profit by any means necessary that you seem to be endorsing simply doesn�t exist, and IMO shouldn�t exist.

I love fast food. I grew up so poor that fast food was as close to �eating out� as we got most of the time. And my Mom whipping up welfare purchased grub for an insanely large brood resulted in my developing a rather undiscriminating palate. Fat and salt are definitely intimate acquaintances of mine. But I�d like to see McDonalds go away too. Mostly because of the reading I�ve done on the McLibel suit, and my feelings about their overall negative impact on culture here and around the world.

I agree that it�s a fine line between what are frivolous suits and what aren�t. But in my OP I was really suggesting that maybe even frivolous suits, suits which have no real merit and whose plaintiffs deserve no compensation, have a positive impact in the fact that they scare corporations into doing the right thing. I think an even better point that came up in our discussion is that these �frivolous� suits often appear so outrageous and so provocative that they call attention to very real and serious issues that, once illuminated, the corporations have to address lest they lose their loyal customers.

vm

lisarea

While I still wouldn't necessarily endorse taking these cases as far as Banzhaf seems to intend to, I think it's worth pointing out a few salient points:
[list=1][*]There is no epidemic of lawsuits being filed against fast food chains by obese individuals.[*]Fast food restaurants are NOT legally required to publish nutritional information, contrary to what many seem to think.[*]Several fast food restaurants, including McDonald's, have voluntarily published nutritional information, and much of it was provably false. This was the basis for at least one of the successful suits mentioned earlier.[*]I can't find a clear cite for this right now, but I've seen reference to a case in which McDonald's "ice cream" cones were advertised as having a given fat and calorie content based on multiple servings per cone. Would it be acceptable to advertise an "ice cream" cone (I quote this because I don't think it's real ice cream), citing the fat and calorie content of only half, based on such an arbitrary and completely implausible designation? [*]Fast food restaurants enter into agreements with public schools, allowing them to offer their products as an alternative to school lunches.[/list=1]

Contrary to the way these things are being cast by the media, this is not a clear issue of simple personal responsibility. Many factors play into this sort of thing, including deceptive advertising practices, the issue of access to public schools, and the age of the targeted audience. (Note that we have many clear guidelines for advertising aimed at children.)

Frankly, I'm disturbed not only by the disingenuous tone that the media seems to take regarding cases like this, but by how very willing so many of us seem to be to swallow their simplistic explanations.