Running head: LARD AND LAWSUITS: SHOULD WE SUE MCDONALDS?

Lard and Lawsuits: Should We Sue McDonalds? Eli Klein Siena Heights University BAM 311

LARD AND LAWSUITS: SHOULD WE SUE MCDONALDS? Introduction In 2003, Jazlyn Bradley and Ashley Pelman were two overweight teenage girls whose

parents were suing McDonalds restaurants for causing their obesity, heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and elevated cholesterol. Ultimately, their case was dismissed, as a clear link between the girls health problems and their McDonalds diets could not be solidly established (Wald, 2003, par. 13). In 2013, the names of Bradley and Pelman have been long forgotten, but the controversy surrounding social products liability and the McDonalds Corporation still continues to swirl and persist. News programs and documentaries have explored the idea that eating McDonalds consistently can have ill effects on ones health, and the fast food chain has remained synonymous with poor eating habits. McDonalds in kind has dropped its Super Size option, but the question of safety when eating McDonalds regularly, Super Size or not, brings concern. Is it possible that McDonalds was liable for Bradley and Pelmans deteriorating wellbeing? Is the possible liability that lies in selling McDonalds Happy Meals and Big Macs analogous to the liability in selling handguns? Finally, how does customer autonomy come into the picture, and is a warning label enough to protect a restaurant giant with a not so spotless reputation? Focusing on the Consumer First, the strongest reasons why McDonalds should not be blamed for a customers weight gain, health issues, or other physical maladies must be acknowledged. Customers who routinely visit McDonalds, although not making an especially beneficial choice, are not condemning themselves to lives filled with health issues. However, if those health issues surface, their genetics, activity level, and psychological standing must be measured and examined along

LARD AND LAWSUITS: SHOULD WE SUE MCDONALDS? with their food choices. If an individual comes from a family with high blood pressure and decades of diabetes in its past, the person themselves, whether they frequent fast food joints or not, has a predisposition towards these conditions. In the same way, someone who sits on the couch and shirks physical activity of any kind is not likely to be healthy regardless of the food they consume. Finally, psychology comes into play when a person has compulsive feasting behavior or an eating disorder. Although McDonalds may provide fuel for the fire of a binge eaters flame, it did not generate that heat in the first place. So, while the golden arches may make it easier for an overeater to indulge, the restaurant did not cause the addictive behavior in the customer. Social Products Liability and McDonalds On the other hand, McDonalds can be seen as liable when social product liability enters the equation. According to DesJardins and McCall (2000), If the product is defective (usually

defined as unreasonably dangerous), the manufacturer can be required to pay damages regardless of whether it was at fault. Essentially, with the adoption of the strict liability approach, product liability law has gone from a fault-finding exercise to a mechanism for compensating those injured by product defects (p. 307). While Filet-o-Fish and an order of Chicken Nuggets cannot be necessarily called defective, they could be seen as dangerous items to customer health. When eaten incessantly over a long period of time, these products could be seen as defective for everyday consumption, due to the weight gain and other discomforts that might result. When seen from a social products liability route, McDonalds could be at fault for not making their fat content or high caloric count more apparent, or for only focusing upon tasty but ultimately overall detrimental meal choices in their advertising. In the end, Bradley and Pelman could have invoked social products liability in their lawsuit against the cultural institution that is McDonalds

LARD AND LAWSUITS: SHOULD WE SUE MCDONALDS? because they felt deception was employed. The deception in question was the defectiveness of the food for a daily diet, which resulted in injury to their personal wellbeing. Food vs. Guns In the sphere of liability, many products come under the firing squad, especially handguns. While buying a hamburger and buying a handgun may seem vastly different, the

liability cases brought upon both products are eerily similar. DesJardins and McCall (2000) state that critics of guns believe that it makes sense to sometimes hold firms responsible for the foreseeable, but unintended, harms caused by their products, even when those harms are caused by misuse. After all, they contend, failure to prevent foreseeable misuse is a traditional basis for product liability assignments (p. 315). In the same vein, if a habitual fast food eater sues McDonalds for their obesity, heart attacks, and the like, these ailments could be perceived as the products of misuse. The customer could misuse the product by indulging in the food too often, not making healthy choices at the fast food joint, or not balancing their typical burger order with a side salad. In any of these cases, Ronald McDonald could be held accountable for foreseeable misuse and made to alter his chow to prevent or reduce future misuses from occurring. Dangerous Goods On the contrary, eating McDonalds seems significantly less lethal than handling firearms; at least ingesting food takes significantly more time to kill an individual than being on the other end of automated violence. Also, a death that could be claimed to have originated from overeating fast food could have other causes as well, where a death by gun violence clearly has only one cause. In short, liability against the golden arches is harder to blame solely on the

LARD AND LAWSUITS: SHOULD WE SUE MCDONALDS? product itself, and therefore product liability suits against the company are never completely deserved. Warning Labels and Customer Autonomy

Another issued to be parsed is the subject of warning labels and customer autonomy. Can a warning label or nutritional facts provide enough protection from liability for McDonalds? Can an individual then use their customer autonomy after being provided this information and not have the right to hold McDonalds liable because they were forewarned? Both seem plausible. McDonalds now provides nutritional information more readily than ever before, sometimes even listing the calories and fat content of an item right on its packaging. So, customers are becoming better informed when they sit down to eat about what they are putting in their mouths. Customer autonomy then becomes the focus, as a well informed public can make their own choices in an educated manner than does not hold any company liable, but only themselves. If a person chooses to eat Big Macs every day and knows that each one contains an exorbitant amount of calories, they are making the choice to risk their health. McDonalds has done its part by making a customer aware of this fact, but only a customer can make a rational decision about what they consume and how often they consume it. Ultimately, just because a person can make a choice does not mean it will be a good one. Conclusion It seems that more elements in the discussion of McDonalds and liability hold consumers accountable instead of the fast food giant itself. Bradley and Pelman had a right to pursue a case, but it appears that with the improvements McDonalds is making in providing information about

LARD AND LAWSUITS: SHOULD WE SUE MCDONALDS? its admittedly unhealthy grub, the buyer themselves will have to make wiser choices and alter their own personal daily menu, not the other way around.

LARD AND LAWSUITS: SHOULD WE SUE MCDONALDS? References DesJardins, J., & McCall, J (2000). Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Wald, J. (2003, February 17). McDonalds obesity suit tossed. CNN Money. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/