From: matus [matus@SNET.Net] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:18 AM To: matus@SNET.Net Subject: MFD List - McDonald's marketing cited for teens' obesity (PHCR) (lawsuits) (The same trial lawyer that spearheaded the class action lawsuits against 'Big Tobacco' (and pocketed some 40 million dollars in the process) is after the nations next biggest class of business, the fast food industry. Mr. Hirsh is representing Caesar Barber in his lawsuit against the top four fast food chains in the US. He now represents three teenagers from poor families that are overwieght and bringing suit against McDonald's. Also of note, the 'Physicians Committe for responsible medicine' is the referenced group advocating this healthy attitude. My Editorial sent to The Day on PHCR follows this article. - Mike) Mr. Barber also is being represented by Mr. Hirsch 1- McDonald's marketing cited for teens' obesity ---------- Washington Times Three teenagers in New York City have filed a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's, saying the fast food chain's food caused them to get fat and develop serious health problems including heart disease and diabetes. (09/10/02) http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020910-75514038.htm McDonald's marketing cited for teens' obesity By Ellen Sorokin THE WASHINGTON TIMES Three teenagers in New York City have filed a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's Corp., saying the fast food chain's food caused them to gain as much as 200 pounds and develop serious health problems including heart disease and diabetes. Top Stories The teenagers, whose ages range between 13 and 19, say in court papers that McDonald's inaccurately posted nutritional information and deceptively advertised its products. They also say the restaurant chain used marketing practices such as toy and value meal promotions to entice its patrons to eat the food. "We feel that the advertising strategies [of quick-service chains] target young children," said Samuel Hirsch, the attorney representing the teenagers. "Toy promotions and Happy Meals are a lethal combination." Mr. Hirsch said his clients ate at McDonald's almost every day for at least five years. One teenager, who is 5-foot-9-inches tall, now weighs 270 pounds; another, who is 5-foot-3-inches tall, now weighs 200. The parents of the teenagers, either unemployed or on disability, filed the lawsuit on behalf of their children. The lawsuit seeks undetermined compensatory damages. McDonald's officials yesterday the lawsuit and others like it make "no sense." "This is nothing more than a frivolous lawsuit," company spokesman Walt Riker said in a written statement. "Its claims are ridiculous. Common sense tells you that it makes no sense. McDonald's serves quality food. Our menu features choice and variety with lots of options for consumers. "Meanwhile, McDonald's will continue to do what we've been doing for 30 years: providing industry-leading nutrition information to customers about our menu offerings so that they can make informed choices," the statement reads. McDonald's announced last week it would introduce a new cooking oil that has lower levels of trans-fatty acids, which have been linked to raising "bad" cholesterol levels. The latest lawsuit, filed in the New York Supreme Court, comes a month after a New York City man, who has been eating fast food since the 1950s, sued the country's four leading fast-food chains, also blaming the restaurants' fatty fare for his health problems. In July, Caesar Barber, 56, filed a suit - also with the Supreme Court of New York - against McDonald's, Burger King Corp., KFC Corp. and Wendy's International, blaming the chains for making him and others overweight and raising his risk of illness related to being overweight. Mr. Barber also is being represented by Mr. Hirsch. In his case, Mr. Barber, a 5-foot-10-inch, 272-pound maintenance worker, said he had heart attacks in 1996 and 1999, and has diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. So far, the two cases are based on studies documenting obesity and related illnesses. The latest lawsuit charges that McDonald's franchises are negligently selling products "that are high in fat, salt, sugar and cholesterol content which numerous studies have shown cause obesity, diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, strokes, elevated cholesterol intake, related cancers, and/or other detrimental and adverse health effects and/or diseases." The lawsuit drew criticism from consumer groups and plaudits from medical groups, which said yesterday such cases alert people about the health risks of consuming fast food. "We advocate for people to take control over their diets, but these lawsuits keep fast food in the news and point to the real issues that fast food can cause," said Brie Turner-McGrievy, a clinical research coordinator with the Washington-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine. Others disagree. "The Caesar Barber case was clearly a legal belly flop in the eyes of the public," said Mike Burita, a spokesman for the Center for Consumer Freedom in Washington. "The trial lawyers are back at the drawing board, now using kids as their new pawns to try to get their multimillion-dollar payday in court. This has everything to do with fattening attorney wallets and nothing to do with slimming down Americans." ---- Comments on PHCR ---- To the Editor of The Day, in response to the perspective article that was printed on 08/03 entitled "Lawsuits, not fast food, are good for us" Neal Barnard who is president of the "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" said "The truth is that the beef, chicken, pork, dairy, sugar and fast-food industries - through their tremendous political and economic clout - manipulate what Americans think, know and believe about food. With such an uneven playing field, it's tough for those of us speaking in the public interest to compete." Neil should be one to speak about 'manipulating the public' With statements such as "Meat consumption is just as dangerous to public health as tobacco use. It's time we looked into holding the meat producers and fast-food outlets legally accountable." made by Neil Barnard, it is not hard to imagine what agenda is hidden behind these actions. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (or PCRM) is an animal rights front group that has no interest in the public health. PCRM, ignoring scientific evidence, has claimed that milk causes cancer and diabetes and weakens bones. John Doyle, director of communications for the Center for Consumer Freedom says of the PCRM "Their so-called medical advice and health advice is nothing more than a continuation of their extreme animal rights agenda." Indeed, as the Center for Consumer Freedom points out, Tax records show that PCRM is in part funded with $430,000 by the Foundation to Support Animal Protection, a group co-founded by the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, also known as PETA. John Doyle said further of PCRM "They've frequently been cited by the media as a legitimate physicians group, but nothing could be further from the truth. What they are, simply, is an animal rights organization." On its Web site, the PCRM calls itself a "nonprofit organization supported by approximately 5,000 physicians and 100,000 laypersons." "Using their own numbers, less than 5 percent of their membership are actually doctors," Doyle said. Far from being an unbiased source of health guidance, PCRM has asserted itself as a home for anti-meat zealots who are committed to removing beef, dairy, poultry, and other animal products from diets under the guise of protecting the health of the people. One wonders what the remaining 5% who are doctors received their PhD's in? And does having only 5% of its members as Doctors justify their self appointed title of 'Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine'? The American Medical Association's opinion about PCRM is unequivocal, saying that it "finds the recommendations of PCRM irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the health and welfare of Americans." In a separate public censure, the AMA "continues to marvel at how effectively a fringe organization of questionable repute continues to hoodwink the media with a series of questionable research that fails to enhance public health." While it is clear to any objective observer or scientifically minded person that animals have emotions to varying degrees correlating to their complexity, choosing to eat meat or not is a moral choice, not a health one. There are plenty of healthy meat inclusive diets and plenty of unhealthy vegetable only diets. Promulgating an agenda based on pseudoscientific medical claims under the guise of increased health is pure intellectual dishonesty and does a disservice to the integrity of consumer protection groups while simultaneously insulting the intelligence of the public. Michael Dickey Center for Consumer Freedom - http://www.consumerfreedom.com ActivistCash.com - http://activistcash.com/ www.matus1976.com - Article archives