McDonald's French Fries Lawsuit???
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5402763?GT1=4244


Okay, if you don't like the fatty fries, then don't eat them! To me, this is another "who cares" lawsuit.

How this gets in the courts is baffling. I've read in several places that McDonalds decided not to alter the fries. USA Today I believe.

No kidding.

I like the fries just fine the way they are, thank you very much.

Anything battered and put into oil to cook is just not good for you...

But we're too dumb to realize that, see. That's why non-profit websites have to save our lives for us.

Ronald McDonald is skinny

I think it's more like a PR/leverage thing. The company said they were going to do it, and then reneged. The lawsuit seeks no monetary damages, just for McDs to be straight up about reneging and then do what they said they were going to.

I don't see the big deal on this one. Just my two bits.

Mmmmm.....Fries....I think I'm gonna go buy some...

What is reneged? They changed their mind and made public the knowledge they changed their mind. ???????

Huh? McDonalds did not disclose that it had not switched :confused:

First, when is it McDonalds responsibility to inform the public of it's cooking practices? Next, how can someone be responsible for disclosing that it has not done something :p

What's even more exciting is that our tax dollars will be funding this suit.

She's probably a Subway operative

Mainly after they launch a huge media blitz about how they're going to be making their grease healthier and then don't do it.

Bingo.

This is actually, at least, the second time McDonalds has changed the oil in which they cook their fries. They did it in the early nineties, I think, without any fanfare. It was when they switched to Yogurt from Ice Cream, and started baking their apple and cherry pies. Man I used to love their pies. I was initially pissed because I could tell a huge difference in their fries. They used to have, hands down, the best fries in fast food.

The only media blitzes I've seen with regard to this story are the result of lawsuits being filed and/or threatened. Absent those "newsworthy" events, the media didn't much care about this story. I bet this wouldn't have even been a story if mcDonald's had gone through with it on time. In fact, until I read this story, I didn't even know they had changed the oil for the chicken. I wonder why...

like anyone who regularly goes there cares what the fries cook in as long as they taste good. I'm sure this women's dream was to be able to order 2 large fries and feel good about it.

Not knowing anything about this suit, I choose not to comment on it, though at first blush, it does appear a bit silly.

I am more interested in your comment about our tax dollars. Is it a public organization bringing the suit? The article did not say. If so, then the rest of this post does not make much sense.

If it is not a public organization, but a 501(c)(3), then I think that your criticism is still a bit unwarranted. 501(c)(3)s, like all non-profits, do not pay taxes. Indded, there is nothing to tax--they don't make a profit (the NFL, FWIW, is a non-profit because all of the profits go to the member teams. Being a non-profit has nothing to do with being poor or being charitable). 501(c)(3)s also do not receive public money. The only plum that they get is that people can get a deduction for donating to them. That's it. Therefore, in a really indirect way, one could argue that they receive some level of public money, but it is not really our tax dollars funding their activity.

I suppose you may be suggesting that the government should not encourage charitable giving by having 501(c)(3)s. I do not agree with that position, but I suppose that there is a defense for it. If, however, we believe that the government should promote private donations to charity generally, then I do not see how or why we would want to discriminate on the basis of what the charity does. It's generally uncool for the government to begin to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint--even dumbass viewpoints.

(For background, the IRS has taken away 501(c)(3) status for Bob Jones University because the University's policy against interracial dating was seen as not "charitable" as required by statute. The Supreme Court upheld the IRS decision as not unreasonable. I do not agree with the IRS policy here. If we have decided as a country that we want to encourage donations to colleges, I do not think that the government should be in the business of deciding what colleges do and do not deserve such treatment--even if they have dumbass policies like those outlined above).

Yeah, that's the point of the lawsuit after all.

someone please show me where there is a hard date for this conversion.

No, it's not.

"The suit, filed in federal court on behalf of a California woman, says McDonald’s has not disclosed “to the public in an effective manner that it had not switched to a new, healthier cooking oil.”



And a quick search turned up this:

McDonald's Press Release 02/28/2003

McDonald?s TFA Reduction Timeframe Extended

McDonald's today said that it plans to extend the timeframe by which it will introduce a change in cooking oil to reduce trans fatty acids (TFAs) and saturated fats in its fried food menu. The original intent was to complete implementation by the end of February 2003. "While speedy implementation is an admirable goal, we are most focused on the satisfaction of our customers and the quality of our products,? said Ralph Alvarez, McDonald?s US Chief Operations Officer.

Let's see, February 28, 2003...what could have been a little more important to the media than this press release...Oh, I think a little skirmish with Iraq was just about to begin. And again, I ask whose fault it is that this wasn't picked up by the media outlets and run with?

What is the nation coming too when you can not sue McDonalds without Iraq screwing things up! :)

I was referring to the court and judge fees it takes to hear this case, not the actual legal fees for the suing party (after re-reading my post I can how you inferred the latter). Still, I did enjoy the well-written summary of 501(c)(3) organizations :D

Although, being married to an accountant, it's something I had already been through in the past :p

I'm suprised the National Association of Broadcasters wasn't named in the suit, right along with McDonald's.

Actually, maybe they should have been.

Lol, I guess people don't know that they fry the fries in lard.