Maria Ruedisueli
Ronald McDonald does not hold the Responsibility for America’s Obesity Epidemic
An all too common topic and major health concern in America recently is obesity.
Obesity is currently the leading cause of preventable death in the United States
(Robinson, Bloom, & Lurie). The epidemic has created health problems, costs, and
deaths that could have been prohibited by smarter and healthier lifestyle choices. Fast
food and unhealthy eating are obviously concerning contributors to the obesity issue.
However, some people are making statements that fast food is what made them obese and
that those suppliers of the food should be prosecuted for the damages that were caused to
the individual’s body. Fast food is a contributor to obesity, but suing the companies for
responsibility of people’s choices is not a reasonable claim.
The very first obesity case that was brought to trial was Pelman v. McDonald’s
Corp in 2005 where McDonald’s was facing charges for obesity-related health problems
that were “caused by their consumption of McDonald’s food.” (Robinsion et al.). The
main topics that the accusers placed their lawsuit on included deception on the
healthiness of the food, there was no warning that the products could pose a severe health
risk, and that McDonald’s products are physically and psychologically addicting. It was
stated that McDonald’s should be responsible for the obesity and other health issues that
come along with the disease, since they consumed too much of the product. Because the
claim was there about addiction in the food, the situation was then compared to the
tobacco companies that were sued in previous years for intentionally placing nicotine in
their products to keep consumers buying their products (Robinson et al.). This claim did
not stand though, because there is no proof that there is an addictive substance inside
their food.
Besides obesity in general, it is concerning that people are not holding
responsibility for their own actions. Suing a fast food restaurant for someone’s personal
obesity issues is not a reasonable solution. The choice to eat as much as some do to get
to the point of obesity was made by personal choice. Even “vulnerable” children would
not win such a case against the company because there is the choice of other food
(Robinson et al.). Obesity does not just occur from eating one hamburger; it is a
progressive disease that can be avoided. If someone was struggling with weight control,
continuing to go to buy fast food after seeing the effects on their body is what they chose
to do themselves. Fast food is not the only factor that can cause obesity, either.
Unhealthy food definitely is a contributor, but there are other factors according to
personal lifestyles such as exercise that can affect the weight gain. It is human nature to
find something else to blame their problem on beside themselves, and with regards to
obesity it is nearly impossible to narrow down the cause to just one factor (Ayoob).
Taking control of consumer’s own actions and lifestyle is necessary rather than placing
the blame on someone else like the corporations.
Using the court system is not the solution to fighting obesity. Instead of trying to
fix consumers’ own lifestyles, fighting in court has been a more popular action. As stated
above, the concept of using legal action to fight obesity has had the largest comparison to
fighting against smoking companies in the courts (Business News). Even if someone
won a court case for the company being responsible for obesity, how does this help fight
to end it or make someone’s life any healthier? This has no direct effect on the person
who is overweight to fix that problem. This only takes money away from the
corporation, not help people lose weight. “Cheeseburger bills” have been in place to
protect the companies being sued for the “fat law suits,” (Business News). It sounds
ridiculous to place in a bill, because people cannot recognize where the issue started.
“Parents shouldn’t have to wait for legislation, schools or industry to change before their
kids can get healthier. There’s so much they can, and should, do in their homes with their
kids,” (Ayoob). Recognizing that even the belief of the companies are at fault for the
obesity issue that suing them does not have any direct effect on the issue is necessary to
that consumers see that the problem and solution is coming from themselves.
Fast food chains were built for the purpose of their low costs and convenience for
food on the go and to provide that to the customers, nothing more. The restaurants have
no way of deciding for the consumer what they are going to buy and how often they will
buy the product. “Restaurants are only responsible for providing food, not for what
people choose to eat or how much,” Cohn said. “Any food can be part of a healthy diet…
the key is balance and moderation,” (Holliday). The real problem here is balancing the
diet choices and not suing the restaurants for obesity problems responsibility.
Eliminating the supersized option as suggested will most likely not fix the problem. A
person should have enough self control to not order that much food if it is a problem for
them, and even if there was not the supersized option that will not stop a consumer to
order other items on the menu. Fast food places are adding on healthier alternatives to try
to help with the obesity epidemic, but again it all comes back to the consumer and
whether they act on the better option. “Since it is its function to make and sell
hamburgers, there is little McDonald’s can do to foster the recreation of prelapsarian
man,” (Berr). Again, these restaurants are there to provide food, not to hold
responsibility for consumers’ actions.
Some parents argue that character such as Ronald McDonald and the added on
toys in the happy meals directly targets children and are making their children obese.
These parents should realize they are the ones taking their kids to McDonald’s too often
instead of blaming the company for the negative effects on health. A simple no, and
more of McDonald’s as an occasional treat would be simple enough. It is common
knowledge that fast food is not the healthiest choice and that an over intake can have
negative effects on the body. The idea that parents think that they should sue the fast
food company over taking control of their actions is absurd. They are the ones giving in
and taking their children to the fast food chains on a repeated basis. “Blaming big
institutions or industry totally dismisses parents as key influencers, role models, and the
people who truly have authority,” (Ayoob). The elimination of toys from the meals would
not necessarily make a decrease in the food consumption. If children like McDonald’s,
they are still most likely to get the meal because the food is cheap, convenient, and fast
for parents to buy for them. Research from the International Food Information Council
and published in the Journal at the American Dietetic Association shows that parents are
the biggest role models in children’s lives and that parents “carry more weight” with their
kids (Ayoob). Toys are not the problem, it is the repeated intake of the food.
Back to the Pelman case that McDonald’s where three key arguments were made
against the company were deception on the healthiness of the food, no warning of the
products potential health risks, and that McDonald’s products are physically and
psychologically addicting. The deception claim did not stand in courts because there was
no evidence that McDonald’s falsely represented how nutritious the meals were and that
there were no specific advertisements that said eating McDonald’s everyday will have a
an effect on someone’s health (Robinson et al.). The next argument regarding warning
vulnerable consumers that the food can cause severe health risks did not stand in court
either. “…given that product contents are available to the public, the lack of a warning
does not prevent a consumer from making a fully informed choice when deciding
whether to consume these products,” (Robinson et al.). Even though consumers may not
know every single ingredient that goes into making these products, they needed to
provide reasoning for when the use of this food becomes “misuse.” Also, if the consumer
did not know that this food was unhealthy, what makes them think that the food they are
consuming at home or any other place healthy? Too much of even a good thing can pose
health risks. Lastly, the addictive claim did not pass in court either. There was failure to
show “fast food contains any addictive ingredients, much less evidence that the industry
concealed or manipulated such ingredients,” (Robinson et al.). All the arguments made
in this case ended up being statements of blame with no real evidence to back up the
claims.
Obesity is a major issue and personal struggle in the United States, where
unhealthy eating is a contributor to the problem; however, it is not logical to sue the fast
food restaurants who distribute the food to hold them responsible for their personal
obesity problems. Lawsuits including claiming that the food is addictive, that the
consumers were deceived into thinking the food was healthy, and that there was no
warning to the consumers that the product could be potentially harmful do not stand in
court due to lack of evidence. The fast food restaurants do not force people to buy their
products, and they should not responsible for the misuse of the products. Eating
everything in moderation is important to staying healthy along with regular exercise. The
plaintiff who was making these accusations has multiple factors contributing to the
obesity problem not just eating too much McDonald’s. Because it does have a cause in
the obesity, eating it in moderation is the best choice, or eating the healthiest products
available there. The fast food chains do provide information on what is in their products
that can be checked online so that there is enough information on what you are in taking.
It is recognized that it is not easy to lose weight and stay healthy, and may be a personal
struggle, but in order to change that people need to see where the problem really is.
Overall, people need to take responsibility for what they are putting into their bodies
without blaming others if they really want to see a change. It is not the restaurant’s
responsibility to cover the damages caused by the misuse of their product.
Works Cited
Ayoob, Keith. "Nutrition Nation - Insights on Our World of Food Choices USATODAY.com." Editorial. Childhood Obesity: Answers Begin at Home 31
Jan. 2012. Your Life: Health, Fitness, Food & Self - USATODAY.com. USA
Today, 31 Jan. 2012. Web. 1 Feb. 2012. <http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitnessfood/nutritionnation/post/2012/01/CHILDHOOD-OBESITY-Where-it-can-besolved-and-where-it-cant/613420/1>.
Berr, Jonathan Jonathan. "Lawsuit Threat: McDonald's Happy Meal Toys Make Kids Fat
- DailyFinance." Editorial. Business News, Stock Quotes, Investment Advice DailyFinance. AOL Daily Finance, 22 June 2010. Web. 03 Feb. 2012.
<http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/22/mcdonalds-happy-meal-toyslawsuit/>.
"Business News; McDonald's the Target of 12th Fat Law Suit // 10 Won, 1 Upheld,
McDonald's Lost 2, in Fight Against Pediatric Obesity." Pediatrics Week. (July
24, 2010 ): 855 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/02/04.
Grills Robinson, Melissa, Paul N. Bloom, and Nicholas H. Lurie. "In the Courts: Will
Lawsuits against McDonald's Work?" Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 24.2
(2005): 299-306. American Marketing Association, Fall 2005. Web. 1 Feb. 2012.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000667>.
Heather Holliday. "Supersized nation: Are fast-food restaurants responsible for teens'
obesity? " Scholastic Scope 7 Mar. 2003: Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 4
Feb. 2012.