Happy Meal Lawsuit: Forget Obesity, Parenting’s the Real Issue

December 16th, 2010. By AbiK

So here we go again. Someone who seemingly forgot that, by the way, she’s a parent, has decided to file a lawsuit in California—well, to be fair, she filed it with folks from over at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)—against McDonald’s. Why? Because they apparently target children when they market their Happy Meals to the public at large (ie, deceptive marketing). And, let’s face it, no one’s suggesting to throw a Happy Meal on the official Food Pyramid—it’s not the healthiest fare.

I paused as I read the news on this to reflect upon a phrase someone here (yes, my boss) tends to quote: “Where there’s loss, there’s liability.” I’ll tell you where the loss is—it’s in our collective minds. And don’t think I’m being harsh here or pro promoting a pathway to childhood obesity and potentially a whole host of related grown-up health issues. Here—this is a quote from Monet Parham—the woman who filed the lawsuit–from cnn.com today:

“We have to say no to our kids so many times and McDonald’s makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”

Am I the only one who reads that and goes, “huh?”

Think about it. Ms. Parham is saying that McDonald’s is making it hard to say “no” to her kids. I have visions of Ronald McDonald, the Hamburglar and Fry Guys coming down upon the roof of the Parham’s abode, SWAT team style, and basically holding her and her family hostage until she says, “YES!! We’ll have the fries!” Surely there ought be local news footage of that scene somewhere on youtube—but you haven’t seen it yet, have you? That’s because it doesn’t exist.

See, in my household—I have 3 kids—I could drive down the street, passing a McDonald’s every 500 feet, and have zero problem saying “no” to my kids, no matter how much they might beg for a Happy Meal. Is it just me? (Btw, don’t miss my last post on this issue with Happy Meal Lawsuits, where I bring Larry Winget into the picture.)

And in terms of McDonald’s getting into my kids’ heads without my permission…Note to Ms. Parham—you gave permission when you allowed your kids to either turn on the tv or pick up a magazine or listen to the radio. Don’t want it to happen? Turn off the t.v.—or at the very least, engage your kids in a healthy discussion about healthy foods and “good” food choices.

This McDonald’s Happy Meal lawsuit gets better though. CNN quotes CSPI Executive Director Michael Jacobson as saying “They are going straight at little kids. The company is using unfair techniques to persuade the kids to persuade the parents to go to McDonald’s. Tobacco companies don’t go after 3 year-olds. Neither does Coca Cola or Pepsi.”

Coca-Cola or Pepsi? Ever heard of Hi-C?

As for claims that using a toy as a ploy to lure kids into the McDonald’s franchise, no kidding. But the kids have parents. Parents who should be taking responsibility—and parenting.

I wonder if Ms. Parham is eco-conscious? If so, do her kids want the new Hess Toy Truck and Jet? Would she buy Hess gas just because her kids want her to go see and get the truck? Talk about enticing marketing—have you seen that commercial? The Hess truck even has a Facebook page! My kids, who don’t even watch much t.v. know the Hess truck jingle by heart. Are they getting it? No.

How about those little plastic M&M guys—there’s a whole line of them, just for little kids to delight over. You know what happens when my kids see one in a store and want it? I say no. And we don’t buy the M&M’s either.

It’s a simple equation—marketers minus consumers equals…nothing. Those huge marketing budgets that McDonald’s can blow on Happy Meal toys only work because parents are laying out cash for them.

Believe me, I am no fan of fast food and the crap that comes in any of the kids’ meal bags or boxes. I also agree that this country has a serious problem with childhood obesity. But let’s not absolve ourselves as parents of the responsibility of parenting.

And let’s not clog our legal system with lawsuits that can be solved with a two-letter word: No.

There’s the bait. Who thinks they can argue otherwise?

Fracking and Flammable Tap Water? NY Says Hell No…for now

December 16th, 2010. By LucyC

New York Governor David Paterson no doubt made New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg a very happy man recently, when he signed an executive order halting the controversial natural gas drilling process called hydraulic fracturing—or fracking—in the state until July 1, 2011.

The fracking process is controversial to say the least because it may be associated with harmful effects on the environment, specifically underground drinking water. Folks in the eastern states of New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are particularly concerned because they sit on shale formations such as the Marcellus Formation, which are estimated to contain trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.

The governor signed the order to stop horizontal fracking in New York state on Saturday. The ban will remain in place until the state Department of Environmental Conservation completes a comprehensive review to determine what, if any dangers are associated with this process.

But the folks who live in areas where hydraulic fracking is taking place—areas such as the Delaware River Basin in Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, claim they are Read the rest of this entry »

Understanding the 120-Day Deadline for VA Claim Appeals

December 15th, 2010. By Kristine B

It’s a lawsuit that could have huge implications for US veterans trying to claim veterans’ benefits: A lawsuit being heard by the Supreme Court asks the justices to rule that lower-court judges can be lenient in extending the 120-day deadline for filing appeals regarding denied claims. Although the issue might seem open and shut to some of us—let’s just do the right thing for our veterans, already—lawyers for the VA say Congress didn’t allow for judges to be flexible with the deadline. This week, Pleading Ignorance looks at the deadline issue and asks when our veterans will be treated fairly. 

So, here’s the issue in a nutshell. A veteran files a claim with the VA and that claim is denied. The veteran then has 120 days to file an appeal of the denial. If he misses the 120-day deadline, he’s out of luck. His appeal won’t be heard. Okay, I know what you’re thinking: a deadline is a deadline. Don’t miss the deadline and you’re fine.

But the problem is this: veterans file claims because of health problems. Let’s say the veteran has been badly injured and is in the hospital for nine months, with no one to help him through the claims process. How is he supposed to file the claim from the hospital when there’s a chance he might not even know the claim was denied? How is he supposed to take care of the paperwork from his hospital bed? 

Or, what about veterans who deal with issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other psychological problems that impair their ability to understand the deadlines or the paperwork involved? The very condition that requires them to file a claim could be what stops them from being able to submit an appeal after a denied claim. 

Look, I’m not saying we should give them 10 years to file appeals. But for crying out loud, they served our country—probably for a lot longer than 120 days. Is there no way we can be flexible in dealing with veterans who have health problems that prevent them from filing an appeal in 120 days? 

The case before the Supreme Court is a perfect example of the unfairness of the system. David Henderson was a Korean War veteran who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and Read the rest of this entry »

Should the FDA Share Some of the Blame on DePuy?

December 14th, 2010. By Hunter West

Earlier this month it was announced that all pretrial proceedings for lawsuits centered on the recalled DePuy hip replacement system, will be heard before a single judge in Toledo.

While there are about 150 lawsuits so far, those in the know expect that number to grow to well beyond 1,000. More than 30,000 patients in the US received the complete DePuy hip replacement system that is seen to be failing in a large number of cases, since it was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2005.

Surely Billy Joel expects his hip replacements to last more than 5 years…

I’ll get back to the FDA in a moment. But imagine, if you will, the frustration borne by hip replacement patients realizing that medical products designed to last 20 years, are failing after only a few.

Let’s remember that individuals who are getting hips now, are by and large more active than our fathers and grandfathers at a similar age. We’re not ready for the nursing homes at 50, or 60 or even 70. There are people who are running, skiing, even competing in various sports well into their 80s.

For the remainder of us not inclined toward athletic pursuits, we remain by and large much more active than our forefathers.

Look at Billy Joel. He is still a relatively young man at 61, is he not? In the last two weeks he received a double hip replacement. We fully expect to see him dancing up there on the stage in no time, and I’m sure he expects to have that capacity for the next 20 years if he so chooses.

That’s the point—the expectation. Twenty years is the expectation.

Not five.

So pity the patient, in his 50s who receives a hip and rather than the promised 20-year lifespan, is met instead with pain and suffering, together with a second surgery just a few years on.

Little wonder the expectation is for so many lawsuits over the recalled DePuy system.

That said, I hope the FDA gets some of the blame…

Here’s why.

Our country’s great overseer of all things drug and medicinal employs this little-known rule Read the rest of this entry »

Outrage! Why Wasn’t Diego in a Car Seat? No Diego, Don’t Go!

December 14th, 2010. By LucyC

This week it’s all about getting creative. 

Diego’s Riding Shotgun. Take this fellow for instance. Knowing he was going to be late for work—and who needs that stress in this economy—he decided to take “Go, Diego, Go!” to a whole new level.

He grabbed his child’s Diego doll, strapped it in to the passenger seat, and headed off down the highway—in the HOV lane.

As you can imagine, Diego was a model passenger, sitting quietly with seat belt buckled, no texting, no emails, no spilled coffee, last minute make-up applications, or attention deficit radio station issues. The ideal travel companion, I would have said.

For those of us who lack an in-depth knowledge of children’s TV, “Go, Diego, Go!” is a tot’s cartoon series and subsequent marketing empire, which includes the doll Diego, obviously. Diego is a spin-off of Dora the Explorer. Additional genealogy can be found at Wikipedia.

But Deigo, it seems, was a little too well behaved on the ride into work. His calm composure and enormous, unblinking eyes gave the Washington state trooper laying in wait on the Interstate 405 onramp, reason to suspect that either something very naughty was going on under the dashboard, or, well, it might be not be human (which speaks volumes about human behavior).

Of course, state troopers are savvy to the fact that people do use the high occupancy lane with only one person in the car—or their children’s dolls in the passenger seat, or maybe even a blow-up doll. So, when Daddy was pulled over, he confessed everything: the truth is always best in these types of situations. He was cited for the HOV lane violation, which no doubt made him late for work after all. 

You know, I think this story might make a good” Go, Diego, Go!” episode: “Diego Goes to Work.” 

Rule #1: Don’t Jilt a Lawyer. Following on from monster brides and bridezillas—there’s now a Read the rest of this entry »