h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There has been a lot of low-key reporting about the case of the people suing MacDonalds because fast food made them fat.

Most people I know (middle class, professional, educated people) are saying that it is ridiculous to sue MacDonalds: of course fast food makes you fat.

But I actually think that it is time that the half-lies and half-truths which are told about food should be held up and called to account. MacDonalds claims that its chips are a source of Vitamin C. How un-nutritious does a meal have to be for the best thing that you can say about it is that the french fries are a source of Vit C? As I recollect a Big Mac, Fries and Coke consititutes about 1500 calories - ie more than a daily allowance.

So - who is in the right here?

Should the punters have known instinctively that a meal from MacDonalds gives less than its fair proportion of nutrition?

Or should fast food have a health warning?

B

I'm on McDonalds' side on this one. They should have known.

I hate to say it, 'cos I'm no fan of McD, but I'm with Xanatic... Didn't someone once sue McD because their coffee was hot..? I've a nasty feeling that the punter won that one *shakes head sadly*

Hi Ben

They recommend that the average woman should consume 2000 calories a day including 70g of fat, so if you *only* ate the bigmac meal you might be ok (don't know the fat content).

I don't think they should come with a health warning necessarily - but I do think they should put the nutritional info on the packs like supermarkets do so punters are more informed about what they are eating.

*recalls simpsons episode where Homer tries to put on weight - rub the food on paper, if the paper goes clear then it is ok!*

I am interested to see that BK have launched the Chicken Whopper lite. I wonder what the fat/calorie content is for that - it should certainly have the info on it, because if you only ate those and got fat then you might have a case.

Did McD or BK ever say their product was actually healthy? Did those punters eat only their food, or were they having chocolate and other unhealthy stuff as well?

k who has only herself to blame

I think the punters should have had more common sense, but common sense isn't all that common. What if you genuinly believed that the food that you were eating was harmless, wouldn't you feel mislead? I know most people would have to disengage their higher brain functions to put themselves in this position but it happens.

But the main reason I side against McDonalds is that I just want them to be taken to the cleaners for damaging the environment just to produce gross food. So I'm a bit biased.

Ste

I do think it is a bit daft, but then I also think McDs etc could make it more obvious what exactly is in their products. The only way to find out the ingredients is to pick up a leaflet (that they may or maynot have on display) which lists the ingredients for each product...
In the case of things like the burgers/fries etc where they are provided in packaging matched to the product it wouldn't be difficult to include the ingredients/nutritional info on the packaging. This would also cover them against the "this product may contain nuts" law suit. I know that what they provide varies (ie no pickles) but so long as it states that the info is for the standard product then it will be more use to people than a leaflet (in a box in a corner in the toilets).

What about restaurants, they don't exactly include a whole ingredients list either. Just "garnated with mushrooms" and things like that. Can we sue them?

I don't think proper restaraunts agressivly advertise to try and get you to eat there for breakfast and lunch.

I wish all restaurants would provide a calorie/fat indicator (even if it is only a low fat/medium fat/high fat icon beside each dish on the menu) - it would making choosing much easier for me.

'Real' restaurants differ from fast food places though because few people could afford to eat out every single day whereas many can afford an extra value meal in place of other food.

Plus they don't serve their food in little polystyrene containers covered in their logo. (Not to mention the lack of drive through french cuisine available)

Ste said: What if you genuinely believed that the food that you were eating was harmless, wouldn't you feel mislead?

That is my point exactly. You would be amazed (certainly most women would be amazed) at how much single men just don't know about food. Sure. *We* all 'know' fast food is bad for us. But how many of us could put together a nutritious day's eating around a big mac, milkshake and fries? I would find it difficult, and I *do* know about food.

Talk about cats and pigeons...

My opinion is that if tobacco products carry health warnings so should fast foods.

Something along the lines of: "This product contains more than your RDA of sugar, salt and saturated fats. If you eat this meal today you should only eat three raw apples, half a head of celery, half a head of lettuce and a pound of tomatoes for the rest of the day.'



B

I'm with McDonald's on this one and I'll tell you why.

This litigation is absurd in its very nature. Anyone overweight for any reason can exercise, choose to eat different food, get liposuction, whatever. As far as I'm concerned, for there to be a case McDonald's would either have to have a huge monopoly on the food market (sarcasm aside, they don't) or else have forced those people to eat their food.

One of the benefits of living in a capitalist society with anit-monopoly laws is that we can choose what we want to buy and from whom. Why aren't these people suing the entire fast food industry? Did they never go to Burger King or Taco Bell or Pizza Hut? Is there any way to prove that?

And should markets start putting warnings on all things bad (or even good)for us or remove them entirely lest they get sued. I Like canned peaches a lot, but if I eat nothing but them, I may eventually get sick from vitamin deficiency. Should Del Monte (or whomever) stick a warning on there saying that eating only peaches will eventually kill you?

-Eagle 1

Well, then the diners. Sue them.

I understood they were suing McDs, Wendy's, BK and another one (possible taco bell). But then they could have always gone to Subway and got one of their low fat sandwiches when they started to notice their weightgain. (I think it was subway who had a whole campaign around one blokey who lose loads of weight purely through eating their low fat sandwiches)

Don't know what it is like in the US (or anywhere else, have only lived and shopped properly in one country) but in the UK most food from supermarkets comes with the nutritional information on the packaging - so that punters can make informed decisions about what to eat.

It can be very surprising sometimes to look and see that the thing you thought was healthy is 20% fat.

But you can't really smack a sticker like that on your kebab.

And most restaurants and pubs serve their meals with a portion of vegetables or salad.

I think two key points have been made here: firstly Ste's point that MacDonalds agressively advertising breakfasts is a good one.

And secondly, as Kelli indicates: the prices are set so that individuals will *regularly* (once, twice, three times a day) eat a 'value meal' instead of going to the store, buying fresh ingredients, taking them home, preparing them, cooking them and washing up afterwards.

Personally I include Burger King, KFC and all the other fast-food high-fat high-sugar low-vits establishments in the scum-of-the-earth and minions-of-satan category. MacDonalds is not alone.

B

Ben - you are probably right about single men, but I don't think that justifies a health warning.

The thing with food is that if you eat a balanced diet then it is fine to have burgers sometimes. And they aren't addictive as such.

The point somebody made about marketing to encourage you to eat three meals a day there is quite valid though - if you behaved like that then you don't get any balance.

I am anti-MacDonalds for many reasons, but not for making people fat. If you stick a load of fatty food down your neck you can't expect the pounds to roll off, so no, I don't think they should win.

However, with the latest findings indicating that fried foods, especially chips, are extremely carcinogenic, I think that all large fast food vendors should be prosecuted for not immediately acting on this advice. Hell, our ineffectual government has advised people to go on eating fried foods until more is known. Shouldn't the dept of health just said "Avoid chips for the time-being" or "Fried food is just plain nasty - don't eat it"
No. They'd rather see people die of BSE or cancer than upset the bloody farmers again.

I'm sure if McDs or the other big chains started selling kebabs they would come in moulded packaging which could easily take a sticker (admittedly at the expense of one of their lovely logos). I can see the point though it would be hard to insist that McDs have nutritional info without insisting that the chippy on the corner provides it too. I don't think it should be law - I think it would be a positive gesture by McDs etc