i agree w/ mike also. and i still say this case is about truth in advertising.
[quote]chinadoll wrote:
My six year old nephew knows that deep fried food is bad for you.
I think it’s so funny that we are here arguing the plausability about weather or not people realize that eating junk food, deep fried food, etc…is bad for you. The people on the left’s opinions versus the people on the right’s opinions. With all the media, education about it in the schools, etc. for DECADES, you have to have lived on Mars-- or URANUS :)-- for the last couple of decades to not know. I don’t buy it, its a bs no integrity gimmick to create a lawsuit to make money.
don’t think so.[/quote]
Ever watch Jay Leno’s Jaywalking? My favorite are the one’s where he shows up at college graduations and asks basic questions about U.S. history, like, who was the first President. And these college graduates don’t know. Yes, people are that stupid. Yes, people really do need to be warned about common sense stuff. However, whether or not a warning on a bucket of chicken would even do any good is another story. If you don’t know who the hell the first President was, the term “trans fat” might as well be written in Chinese.
I would really like to become a judge. I wouldn’t tolerate this crap in my courtroom.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
sob440 wrote:
Kentucky FRIED Chicken has alot of fat??
Isn’t that like being surprised when a KILLER Whale kills somthing?
I just bought a solar powered flashlight.[/quote]
Does it look anything like this?
[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
Hmmm, I beg to differ. Take away the trans fat, and fried chicken isn’t all that unhealthy. Neither are french fries. Real Potatos cooked in olive oil? Sounds healthy to me. Real Chicken fried in a healthy way? Sounds healthy to me.
[/quote]
Yeah really. Why the demonization of fried food people? Other than problems with oxidation which can be remedied using a high saturated fat like coconut, lard, tallow, or butter, there’s nothing inherantly wrong with it.
The health of saturated fat has been argued to death on these forums so if anyone’s bringing up that can of worms they can read the dozens of threads already started on it.
Remove transfats and high omega 6’s and it sounds healthy to me. 
[quote]Kailash wrote:
Many of you are making the personal responsibility argument, but neglecting KFC’s responsibility…
Many of you seem to be anti-fat in general (“fried foods are bad, mmmkay?”) which goes to show that you might not know too much about nutrition either…
Many of you probably get ripped off at the auto mechanic, and would fight for your rights if you knew any better. It’s no different than someone getting poisoned at KFC and not knowing any better. Just a different field of knowledge, and we can’t all be experts in everything.[/quote]
At one point. It’s getting to the point that if you’re alive and breathing you should be aware of it. And be responsible for your choices. Just like the dangers of smoking. At one time, lawsuits were legitimate because the tobacco companies’ knowledge of the nature of nictoine and the dangers of smoking were vastly superior to the public. That is no longer the case. The dangers of fast food are rapidbly approaching that point as well.
[quote]chinadoll wrote:
My six year old nephew knows that deep fried food is bad for you.
I think it’s so funny that we are here arguing the plausability about weather or not people realize that eating junk food, deep fried food, etc…is bad for you. The people on the left’s opinions versus the people on the right’s opinions. With all the media, education about it in the schools, etc. for DECADES, you have to have lived on Mars-- or URANUS :)-- for the last couple of decades to not know. I don’t buy it, its a bs no integrity gimmick to create a lawsuit to make money.
And why does society need a written disclaimer to dictate weather or not they use common sense anymore? We never did decades ago before all this litigation stuff. “They didn’t print on the hot coffee cup ‘warning: coffee is hot’ so I didn’t know, and burned myself.” Decades ago, people knew coffee was hot, a caloric surplus made you fat, etc…but now suddenly in the era of the frivolous lawsuit, society is walking around clueless and not knowing their ass from their face? I don’t think so.
I know that that point about the hot coffee has been argued to death, but I still laugh when I get a cup of coffee from a fast food place and the “Hot Coffee” warning is there printed on the cup “gee I never woulda guessed-- that’s a new one by me”. This is really litigation based and the courts and the rest of us in society with some integrity need to put our collective foots down and say “enough already.”[/quote]
This litigation is much more groundless than the cofee litigation. That case actually had some merit. McDonalds had been heating their coffee to twice the industry standard, hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns on contact if sipped immediately on purchasing. Their rationale was that people did not drink it for several minutes. Stella Leiback did move to drink it immediately and did suffer severe burns. She did not initially try to sue for millions. She simply asked McDonalds to pay for her hospital bill. They refused. Further, they told her that they were in the business of selling hot coffee. And if she wanted cold coffee to go to Burger King. The jury said: “Ok, you are in the business of selling hot coffee. Twice the industry standard and hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns on contact. That’s fine. But when that occurs, you will have to pay for it.” And the $4mil people cite was not what she received either. That was a jury verdict. The judge reduced the amount significantly. And much of what she did receive was based on punitive damages to stand in for NUMEROUS missing plaintiff who had been burned similarly and did not sue. McDonalds has since reduced the heat of their cofee significantly. And it is still hot and they’re still in the business of selling hot cofee last time I checked.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I would really like to become a judge. I wouldn’t tolerate this crap in my courtroom.[/quote]
I like that.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
At one point. It’s getting to the point that if you’re alive and breathing you should be aware of it. And be responsible for your choices. Just like the dangers of smoking. At one time, lawsuits were legitimate because the tobacco companies’ knowledge of the nature of nictoine and the dangers of smoking were vastly superior to the public. That is no longer the case. The dangers of fast food are rapidbly approaching that point as well. [/quote]
Well said.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
My six year old nephew knows that deep fried food is bad for you.
I think it’s so funny that we are here arguing the plausability about weather or not people realize that eating junk food, deep fried food, etc…is bad for you. The people on the left’s opinions versus the people on the right’s opinions. With all the media, education about it in the schools, etc. for DECADES, you have to have lived on Mars-- or URANUS :)-- for the last couple of decades to not know. I don’t buy it, its a bs no integrity gimmick to create a lawsuit to make money.
And why does society need a written disclaimer to dictate weather or not they use common sense anymore? We never did decades ago before all this litigation stuff. “They didn’t print on the hot coffee cup ‘warning: coffee is hot’ so I didn’t know, and burned myself.” Decades ago, people knew coffee was hot, a caloric surplus made you fat, etc…but now suddenly in the era of the frivolous lawsuit, society is walking around clueless and not knowing their ass from their face? I don’t think so.
I know that that point about the hot coffee has been argued to death, but I still laugh when I get a cup of coffee from a fast food place and the “Hot Coffee” warning is there printed on the cup “gee I never woulda guessed-- that’s a new one by me”. This is really litigation based and the courts and the rest of us in society with some integrity need to put our collective foots down and say “enough already.”
This litigation is much more groundless than the cofee litigation. That case actually had some merit. McDonalds had been heating their coffee to twice the industry standard, hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns on contact if sipped immediately on purchasing. Their rationale was that people did not drink it for several minutes. Stella Leiback did move to drink it immediately and did suffer severe burns. She did not initially try to sue for millions. She simply asked McDonalds to pay for her hospital bill. They refused. Further, they told her that they were in the business of selling hot coffee. And if she wanted cold coffee to go to Burger King. The jury said: “Ok, you are in the business of selling hot coffee. Twice the industry standard and hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns on contact. That’s fine. But when that occurs, you will have to pay for it.” And the $4mil people cite was not what she received either. That was a jury verdict. The judge reduced the amount significantly. And much of what she did receive was based on punitive damages to stand in for NUMEROUS missing plaintiff who had been burned similarly and did not sue. McDonalds has since reduced the heat of their cofee significantly. And it is still hot and they’re still in the business of selling hot cofee last time I checked.
[/quote]
You cited the hot coffee case well. It was a bad example on my part.
JS, thanks for clarifying the Mickey D’s case. I’ve done it so many times I’ve gotten tired of writing about it. The key to that case, as JS noted, wasn’t that a stupid lady spill hot coffee on herself. It was that the coffee was waaay hotter than the rest of the industry. I believe it actually left some blistering on her skin. I’m no expert in restaurant management, but a hot beverage shouldn’t be heated to the point of blistering. And the jury found Mickey D’s only like 5% liable, meaning most of the blame fell on the lady.
The fact that people will get careless and spill hot liquid is very foreseeable. One of the bad things about that case was that the lady really was stupid - she put the coffee between her legs while she was going through the drive thru and it spilled when she stopped her car. I gave a scenario of a more sympathetic plaintiff. What if a lady and her infant were waiting inside when some asshole who was late for work bumped into her and spilled the hot coffee on the infant, leaving severe blisters on the infant’s face. Does that change the perspective?
Someone once responded to this hypothetical with the argument that McDonald’s should not have been punished for heating its coffee better than its competitors. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that heating coffee twice as hot as the rest of the industry is “better.” A company cannot compete at all costs. A company must compete fairly and with safety in mind. I can design an SUV that’s “better” than the competition by giving it less expensive, inferior brake pads. And who needs all that steel? I’ll add an inferior frame to my SUV. This will produce a less expensive vehicle that I can sell more cheaply than the competition. I’ll make millions.
But what if this SUV is in an accident that result in an entire family being killed. The accident report said that with better brakes and a stronger frame, the family could have survived. Obviously, I, as the designer, did not cause the accident. But, am I at least partly responsible for the deaths?
It is interesting to watch people defend the mega-corporations and let them get away with anything they want in the pursuit of profit. Yes, KFC and the rest grudgingly disclose the fact they use trans-fat and then hide or make light of it. Does that make it right? What if the auto industry used a cheaper more dangerous grade of metal and then passed it off as nothing to people that didn’t know better.
If a garden company discloses that they use DDT, does that make it right to spray on a children’s playground? After all it does kill bugs and they put that information “somewhere”. Ever notice that almost all (if not all) fast-food advertising is aimed at children and minoritys? Your child gets the latest movie toy and 12K calories at the McD. You can’t blame the kids, they want the toys and alot of people aren’t that sophisticated about what nutritional needs are. Next time you buy a CD and its half blank don’t blame the manufacturer he making more profit.
Also, what is the difference between KFC doing what they want to boost the bottom line and the guys in the back of Muscle and Fiction selling fake supplements? After all they have a disclaimer too…
[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
It is interesting to watch people defend the mega-corporations and let them get away with anything they want in the pursuit of profit. Yes, KFC and the rest grudgingly disclose the fact they use trans-fat and then hide or make light of it. Does that make it right? What if the auto industry used a cheaper more dangerous grade of metal and then passed it off as nothing to people that didn’t know better…
[/quote]
apparently everyone thinks it’s sop for corporations to say one thing and do another. i must’ve missed that memo. jeez-s ! all this time i thought i had a lock on the “T-Nation’s most jaded” title !
it also appears that people think it’s simply more fun to call other people stupid than to recognize unfair business practices. i mean y’all might as well be saying something like " how could you be such a dumbass to option your pension into enron stock ? even my dog could tell you the value’s way inflated. you gotta diversify."
and jsbrook, you lead off with a statement like “This litigation is much more groundless than the cofee litigation.” but then only talk about the mcdonalds case. nice summation btw, but you’re leaving us hanging. how is the kfc case “much more groundless” ? or was that just a pun seeing as this case doesn’t involve coffee ?
I think something people are forgetting is that there are varying levels of “bad” for you. I think its pretty common to have people respond that fried foods are “bad”, but when a advertising campaign states that their fried food can be a part of a healthy diet it is misleading. They arent saying its healthy (and I dont think people are believing that), but they are suggesting that it isnt “that bad”, when it fact its horrible.
T-Nation members tend to have a much higher knowledge of food than the average person. We know about quality diets, foods, fats, proteins, etc, etc. Most people are still trying to follow the AHA’s wrong lowfat recommendations. They think fat is fat and protein is protein and carbohydrates that are sugar are “good”. In the eys of an average person, I can easily see how someone can say, I can eat my fried chicken with some frequency because Im not having much fat at this meal or that.
Is scrapping your knee bad for you? yes. Is getting in a 20-car burning pile up bad for you? yes. Are they the same thing? no. I think bad and good are being played in absolutes here when it is more complex. Throw in the fact that corporations get away with throwing garbage at us and even get to lace it with food additives with no penalty.
Anyway, I dont know how much the lawsuit is justified, but I wouldnt mind seeing KFC lose it.
I ask, “how misleading is it? hmm, only to a small degree.” I dont think the average person can expect to remain healthy on a diet with excess of fried foods, you can be ok in infrequent, marginal amounts. In this case, KFC may have been downplaying the "bad"ness of their food, but people should still know better than to trust them anyway.
[quote]swivel wrote:
it also appears that people think it’s simply more fun to call other people stupid than to recognize unfair business practices. i mean y’all might as well be saying something like " how could you be such a dumbass to option your pension into enron stock ? even my dog could tell you the value’s way inflated. you gotta diversify."
and jsbrook, you lead off with a statement like “This litigation is much more groundless than the cofee litigation.” but then only talk about the mcdonalds case. nice summation btw, but you’re leaving us hanging. how is the kfc case “much more groundless” ? or was that just a pun seeing as this case doesn’t involve coffee ?
[/quote]
Trying to compare this to Enron is totally ridiculous. There’s no way to know that some executives are going to cut and run. Misleading ads or not, common sense tells you that eating a bunch of deep-fried shit all the time isn’t good for you. Information about saturated fat and whatnot is all over the place these days. There are even free pamphlets and booklets at WAL-MART, which is Fatass Central. Anyone who was concerned about health issues could have asked for some nutrition info.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
sob440 wrote:
Kentucky FRIED Chicken has alot of fat??
Isn’t that like being surprised when a KILLER Whale kills somthing?
I just bought a solar powered flashlight.[/quote]
You fucking bastard X!! I choked on my damn drink when I read that.
[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I just bought a solar powered flashlight.
Would you also be interested in some dehydrated H2O?
[/quote]
You mean powdered water?? I have plenty of that.
[quote]BIGRAGOO wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I just bought a solar powered flashlight.
Would you also be interested in some dehydrated H2O?
You mean powdered water?? I have plenty of that.[/quote]
Funny!!
[quote]BIGRAGOO wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I just bought a solar powered flashlight.
Would you also be interested in some dehydrated H2O?
You mean powdered water?? I have plenty of that.[/quote]
I’ve got a wind-powered fan I’d like to sell you, it works great! I came across it when I was researching my Helicopter Ejection Seat. Can’t talk too much about that, though. Secret military stuff. That and the Submarine Screen Door, you know, so the sailors don’t have to twist open one of those pain-in-the ass hatches everytime they want to leave the sub.
[quote]Kratos wrote:
BIGRAGOO wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I just bought a solar powered flashlight.
Would you also be interested in some dehydrated H2O?
You mean powdered water?? I have plenty of that.
I’ve got a wind-powered fan I’d like to sell you, it works great! [/quote]
You must be in with those investors in Arizona that have those gigantic wind powered fans that are keeping parts of the desert cool. Thanks for helping.
[quote]Kratos wrote:
swivel wrote:
it also appears that people think it’s simply more fun to call other people stupid than to recognize unfair business practices. i mean y’all might as well be saying something like " how could you be such a dumbass to option your pension into enron stock ? even my dog could tell you the value’s way inflated. you gotta diversify."
and jsbrook, you lead off with a statement like “This litigation is much more groundless than the cofee litigation.” but then only talk about the mcdonalds case. nice summation btw, but you’re leaving us hanging. how is the kfc case “much more groundless” ? or was that just a pun seeing as this case doesn’t involve coffee ?
Trying to compare this to Enron is totally ridiculous. There’s no way to know that some executives are going to cut and run. Misleading ads or not, common sense tells you that eating a bunch of deep-fried shit all the time isn’t good for you. Information about saturated fat and whatnot is all over the place these days. There are even free pamphlets and booklets at WAL-MART, which is Fatass Central. Anyone who was concerned about health issues could have asked for some nutrition info.[/quote]
you don’t think enron employees were actively mislead ?
what would you call it then when the execs were representing the company as healthy, profitable, and a great investment even when the knew it was in the shitter ?
anyway this isn’t about saturated fat, which isn’t such a bad thing. it’s about trans fat, which promotes heart disease, and the fact that kfc isn’t telling you it’s in their food, which their ads represent as good choices for the health conscious eater and people who want to eat better, look great and lose weight.
you seriously don’t think it’s wrong to mislead people ?
why do the most on this thread just want to riducule others for not having “common sense” instead of wanting to tell a company it’s not ok to decieve consumers about what their product is or isn’t ?
why don’t you want to see corporations represent their products accurately ?
why don’t you want to see the quality of food improve ?