The Obesity Lawsuit Against Mcdonald's - Case Study Example

The obesity lawsuit against Mcdonalds was beneficial because it was a catalyst in improving laws that govern the fast food industry Introduction: The case was filed in the New York Court, in the year 2005, which stated, inter alia, that as a result of prolonged and heavy consumption of McDonalds’ food products, at the Bronx outlet of the McDonalds, two teenagers, by names of Ashley Pelman and Jazlyn Bradley contracted severe obesity, resulting a series of distress causing health problems. Their contention was that MacDonalds’ has misled them to believe that their products were entirely safe for consumption. (Colb 2005). Their original complaint was refused on 22/1/2003, by the US District Justice Robert Sweet, citing lack of specific reasons in substantiation of their claims. However, he asked them to modify the application, citing that consumption of McDonald’s products could produce health hazards that could not be known to the consumers during the ordinary course of using their products. However, the teenagers had cited that McDonald’s had failed to provide adequate knowledge about the composition of its various food products, and have assured consumers about the total safety of their products by means of false propaganda, and brilliantly executed, yet untrue advertisements. Thus, they had succeeded in luring young people into having food products, which could prove detrimental to the health of the young consumers, as was rightly proved in the cases of the two teenagers, Ashley and Jazlyn. Although the defendants were acquitted of the charges at the subsequent hearings, fundamentally, on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not conclusively prove, that the health hazards arouse due only to consumption of McDonald products, this case sparked off a lot of controversiesm, regarding the functioning of giant food conglomerates, operating just for the amassment of profits only, to the utter disregard of health, safety and welfare considerations of the consumers and the environment. (Colb 2005). There are major reasons for this lawsuit to have a significant impact on the functioning of food conglomerates in the US and the other countries where they operate. Firstly, it is very much needed for such Companies to pay for the enormous health hazards they inflict on others, in order to amass wealth at the cost of the health of society. While it is necessary according to US Laws to offer maximum protection to consumers, this may not always be practicable, since young gullible consumers are lured by misleading advertisement to consume large food products under the mistaken belief that it would not affect their health. It is often said that it is the consumers who have to exercise control, restraint and caution while ordering food products, and should know their safe limits, but it often happens that young people often lay total trust and confidence on propaganda, to the detriment of their own health. In such cases, it is necessary for the Law to afford adequate protection to the consumers by taking action against food product makers who do not follow laws and regulations governing sale of food products. During the hearings of the proceedings of this case, Pelman v.McDonalds’ Corporation (2005), giant companies, such as MacDonald’s and others realized that their corporate statute and international presence could not save them from the ignominy of popular litigation and the voice of the public opinions, on their activities could not be silenced. It is also necessary that Companies like McDonalds’ realize that they would have to internalize their own costs of business and not always pass it on to customers, as is often done. The high costs of litigation and other lawsuit related costs would have to be borne by them, which could often force them to increase the end price of their products, thus making it uncompetitive, in certain cases. Since McDonalds’ often resort to undercutting and lowering prices to maintain their market standing, the effects of litigation and the consequent rise in product pricing, would often result in lowered sales and profits. World wide global Companies such as MacDonald’s’ also need to be aware of the potential liability that their products entail. It is often argued that it is the ultimate consumer who is finally affected by his consumption patterns and lifestyles. But this is not often the case. It is also possible that on many occasions, the potential liability for the ill health of consumers would fall on the insurance Companies or medically linked insurance ventures, etc. The liability which needs to be borne by McDonalds’ now has to be borne by 3rd Parties, who may not be even connected with the matter. In other words, the food company is passing on its own liability to others, while profiteering at the same time. (Colb 2005). This trend needs to be arrested, since it defies the very concept of justice and equality of the framework upon which the legal system in this country has evolved. If there were laws by which it is possible to impose taxes on food items of undesirable quality, or proven to cause health hazards, this may result in a lowering of demand and resultant consumption, and this is necessary for products produced and marketed by Companies such as McDonalds’ It is necessary that Food Companies subscribe to the safe, ethical and humane practices in the acquisition and processing of food items that constitute their end products. But this is not so, in the case of McDonalds’ whose Animal Rights record is highly questionable. Although this Company is the largest purchaser of beef in the country, the treatment of animals needed to be killed for food is highly undesirable and the slaughtering and processing of meat in abattoirs are highly reprehensible under highly unconducive environments. The Company could carry out its activities, with impunity, because is safe because there are no specific laws that govern food animals. (Colb 2005). It is has been said in this case that McDonalds’ food products are so over processed, that it not distinguishable from the impression that a person has about these products, thus a reasonable consumer is therefore “unaware of the full ramification of ingesting” these products. (Westover, 2004. p. 20). This has been a major aspect since the consumer is not aware of the dangers lurking, because of the active ingredients in the food which could pose future health hazards. It is therefore, necessary that manufacturers should inform the consuming public, regarding the hidden or covert threats that could possibly occur due to the use of such products. The film, “Supreme Size me” has been a classic example in which a person, Morgan Spurlock followed a 30 day regimen subsisting on just MacDonald’s’ food products. After the ordeal, his physical well being was severely hampered and he became prone to several serious health problems. Hence there are empirical evidence that uncontrolled binge eating could seriously endanger the health and well being of the consumer, despite the fact that MacDonalds often make large claims that their products are free of health injuring ingredients and fully consumable for all age groups. Conclusion: Although the decided case Pelman v. McDonalds’ Corporation did not yield the desired results, it opened the floodgates for the legal systems to take cognizance of the ill effects of binge food consumption with active ingredients whose excessive use could seriously harm the health and well being of the user. Works Cited Westover, Melanie. An Evaluation of the legal responses to America’s obesity epidemic. P. 20. 2004. 31 Oct. 2007. . Colb, Sherry F.: Find law: Why suing McDonalds’ could be a good thing. CNN.Com. 2005. 31 Oct. 2006. . Read More