eggwards: (Default)
eggwards ([personal profile] eggwards) wrote2004-03-03 08:32 am

Super-Size Me

On OutQ in the morning, they referenced a story that says McDonald's, under lawsuit pressure from idiots looking for a buck, will phase out "Super-Size" fries and drinks.

Of course, this is another instance were a lawsuit has created an air that the average American can't make decisions for themselves. We are so swayed by these companies and their larger fry portions that we can't control ourselves! "Oh, government, please come in and help us, because we are to stupid to choose food for our selves, and I need some cash."

So now we have McDonald's self-regulating, denying our access to Super-Size fries. I remember they tested "Gigantic" size fries here in Houston, where they would fill a 48 oz. cup full of fries. The didn't do to well. Sometimes, too much is just too much. The people have spoken.

Of course, it's a win-win for McDonald's. They look like they're being responsible, concerned about their customer's growing waistlines (because they are sheep, you know), but they'll also sell more fries as those still left wanting more will just buy another order of them. Of corse they might sell one of those horrible baked apple pies instead.

Look, McDonald's has to look like their responding to the lawsuits, even though they haven't actually gone to trial. it's the court of public opinion, but in the long run PEOPLE have to take some responsibility for what they do with your life. Wow, you eat at McDonald's and you find that the food is unhealthy. BIG SURPRISE!

Buck up folks. Everyone needs to grow a little bit thicker skin. Please pass the fries.

[identity profile] eggwards.livejournal.com 2004-03-03 07:25 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm thinking that McDonald's tries to walk a fine line between profitability, offering the customer what they want, and trying to make sure they avoid lawsuits. It's tough.

Certainly they have been pushed by the court of Public Opinion to make changes that show they are being good corporate citizens, but still people expect to get fries, hamburgers and a shake at the restaurant. How many people really do buy their salads?

It's a can't win situation. Really, the bigger problem is that there are lawyers in need of a challenge who are trying to go after any target they can. It's a breakdown of personal responsibility that will end up costing all of us, not only in higher prices, but also in loss of choice. It's forcing the government to be everyone's nanny.

[identity profile] t8r.livejournal.com 2004-03-03 09:34 pm (UTC)(link)
Certainly they have been pushed by the court of Public Opinion to make changes that show they are being good corporate citizens [...]

Exactly. They have to be pushed. They can't be expected to behave responsibly on their own can they?

There are multiple levels of responsibility here. You choose to ignore the responsibilities that place a burden on McD's (public health and other things good citizens should be concerned with), and focus on the irresponsibility of the lawyers in hurting consumer choice, the consumers who willingly clog their arteries with what McD's is serving up, and poor McD's now limited ability to continue to milk the supersize cow. They're *all* problematic, but the dimunition of supersizes which has resulted from these threatened civil suits is but a small inconvenience to the consumer. The massive health problems due to our penchant for large amounts of food, and the willingness of the fast food industry to fulfill this self-destructive desire is a MUCH larger one. These costs to the public (either via taxes to support universal healthcare, or straight from their wallets to the insurance companies and hospitals [if they can afford it, that is]) will far, FAR outweigh the economic good of the profits fast food companies have made from gigasizing their fries.

I agree, there are many many frivolous lawsuits, but I think this one is prolly not the best example with which to make that point and expect everyone to side with the globocorp.