• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Jj Roberts
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Himai Minh
  • Carey Brown
  • salvin francis

Another McDonald's lawsuit

 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
What is sad that some of us seems do not even try to understand others
To get an idea how vegetarian people may feel about MD fries, imagine that someone discovered minuscule amounts of human beef on them. How we all would feel?
Yes, veggi standards are �abnormal� standards, but their abnormality is essentially different from abnormality of cannibal standards, for example. I wonder if this difference is what provoked a kind of hostile reaction in this thread. Yes, it is not realistic for vegetarians to expect legal support for their lifestyle, but I think they deserve at least a bit of sympathy.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Rahul Rathore, I agree with you 100%. I would also like to add that advertised Veggie meals might not be for vegetarian but health reasons. IT is like all the products that have �Fat Free� in their names, it is marketing.
The truth about this is that McDonalds was using some God-awful unhealthy oil to cook their fries (Yes their fries were better then!) and had an expose done on them. They their response was to switch to �healthier oil� ie: vegetable oil. At the time they even said that they were going to put beef flavoring in.
Wait 20+ years and enter people who are vegetarian for religious reasons, an entirely different reason than what was being advertised and viola, betrayal and lawsuits.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Nanhesru Ningyake
For me, vegetarianism is a principle. It's not about religion, it's not about money. And I don't think eating meat would make me an outcast or send me to hell or make me sick, or whatever. It's a lifestyle that I have chosen for myself; and so I feel bitter/enraged when (unbeknownst to me) it has been violated.

Please tell me your thoughts on cross contamination? What happens when the grease used to cook the fries is also used to cook meat? What if a piece of meat touches the fries? What if a meat patty falls into the grease? Do you eat fries at other places? Are you sure that there is no meat involved in any of the process?
Do you think this does not happen?
How much research have you done?

The bottom-line of what I am saying here is, if you haven't already read between the lines: I WISH I KNEW.

But did you WANT to know? As I have mentioned before what about cross contamination? You liked the fries right? Did you not want to know?
By the way, Rahul, that was a clearheaded commentary. Good!

Yes.

It's a bright and beautiful Sunday folks; we've had a pleasant conversation. Here's a quote we can all keep in mind
My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.
[James 1:19-20]


[This message has been edited by Jim Yingst (edited May 06, 2001).]
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Mapraputa Is,

I think you have raised an excellent point.

I myself am a vegetarian of sorts, I do not eat HUMAN meat.

That being said if I moved to a country that ate human meat I would not go into the biggest human flesh peddlers business and order the fries.

Frankly I would be disgusted and would probably even avoid the streets that their restaurants were on.

And believe me, I would research EVERYTHING in that country before I ate it. Maybe I am stupid for trying to take personal responsibility but I guess I am old fashioned. But I would not be eating human.

[This message has been edited by Jim Yingst (edited May 06, 2001).]
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Andy Ceponis,
I think that the issue of smoking IS related to this topic. The problem is that smoking is legal and unhealthy. So is fast food. Right now the tobacco industry is under attack by lawsuits even though the product they sell is legal and known to be unhealthy.

Alcohol will be the next big industry attacked this way.

Fast food is also unhealthy and probably kills more people than tobacco. This is probably the first in a long line of lawsuits against the fast food industry.
What it comes down to is we lose a little more of our freedom with each lawsuit.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3141
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator


I wonder how many of you Vegens eat peanut butter?
You know there are insects in there right?


Jacob ... please ... say it ain't so I love peanut butter
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
OK, I've been doing a bit more editing. Basically, if you refer to past inflammatory comments which have been deleted, then I delete the new reference as well. I understand that several of you feel the need to respond to past comments directed at you - but once I've deleted person A's comment, I can't really let person B have a response which characterizes A's now-deleted comment as racist, intolerant, etc. That just perpetuates the cycle, and for better or worse we no longer have a clear record of just what was said originally anyway.
I don't know if this was the best way to deal with the situation, but I try. Feel free to contact me at jim@javaranch.com if you have questions, suggestions, or objections which aren't appropriate for the public forum.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 782
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Yes, it is not realistic for vegetarians to expect legal support for their lifestyle, but I think they deserve at least a bit of sympathy.


I dont think vegetarians deserve any respect. It is a choice to be a vegetarian. I hate eggplant but i dont expect any sympathy from anyone over it.
I respect people's choices about food though. If they dont want to eat meat, then thats cool. I have no problem with it. Ive cooked 2 different meals on several occasions as one of my buddies ex-girlfriends was a vegetarian. I had no problem doing that. I would never force anything upon anyone. But i never felt sorry for her, and if i did i think she would have gotten mad at me for it.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 246
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The first thing that I thought of is Mad cow very scary !
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 275
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I cannot believe my eyes. Geeks expressing racial hatred ?
I see so many messages in this board which say "hey I am a geek , I am a geek"(such need for constant reassurance itself is suspect).
Guys , a true geek is not even prepared to dislike a Klingon, let alone someone from earth who looks slightly different or belongs to a different religion or culture.
Cheers

Sahir


[This message has been edited by Sahir Shibley (edited May 07, 2001).]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 452
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
>I cannot believe my eyes.
You should have seen it before it got edited!
>vegetarians to expect legal support for their lifestyle
Map, you sound like veggis are a cult or something! Lemme assure you; we come in peace We are not different (except in what we choose to eat); and do not expect any special treatment. My only request would be, if you are a restaurant, know what your food contains, and be prepared to tell me that, when asked.
>Rather they are mensans
You get the best bad guys in town
>embraced and confused 3 distinct issues
The first two were expected to be discussed. After all, the lawyer here wishes to salvage the souls of millions of Hindus who've eaten 'contaminated' fries.
Here's what I would like to see happen:
- McDonald's in India claims to be beef-free. That should absolutely apply to their fries too.
- In the US and elsewhere, in the interest of the growing vegetarian trend, they should consider leaving beef out of their fries.
- I also see a need for a trend to identify veggi-friendly food (just like kosher is indicated now.) Maybe a 'V' symbol in a circle can be used to assure you that there's no animal source in that food item.
And folks, by the way, if you would like the recipe for some hot spicy vegetarian sambar (not the deer sambar), write to me

[This message has been edited by Nanhesru Ningyake (edited May 07, 2001).]
 
Nanhesru Ningyake
Ranch Hand
Posts: 452
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
>And folks, by the way, if you would like the recipe for some hot spicy vegetarian sambar (not the deer sambar), write to me
Finding all the ingredients can be tough for you. Just order sambar in your nearest Indian restaurant It's usually a side dish, goes well with idli. Yummy!
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 324
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Nanhesru Ningyake:
After all, the lawyer here wishes to salvage the souls of millions of Hindus who've eaten 'contaminated' fries.


Two questions:-
1. Will the lawyer distribute the compensation/damages to all the millions of Hindus ? Will I get a piece of the cake too ?(...just wiping my saliva...)
2. Roughly speaking, the Hindu equivalent of going to hell, is being reborn as a cockroach. So, does the lawyer guarantee that upon getting the money compensation, the salvaged souls will NOT be reborn as cockroaches?
I think we the Hindus should seriously discuss these questions with our great lawyer - this great and noble saviour of millions of Hindu souls.
 
Rahul Rathore
Ranch Hand
Posts: 324
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Nanhesru Ningyake:

>vegetarians to expect legal support for their lifestyle
Map, you sound like veggis are a cult or something! Lemme assure you; we come in peace We are not different (except in what we choose to eat); and do not expect any special treatment. My only request would be, if you are a restaurant, know what your food contains, and be prepared to tell me that, when asked.


I think what she meant was that you can't go imposing legal duties, and slamming law suits, to meet your standards of vegetarian purity.
These considerations (among others) militate against the claim:-
1. In the absence of a specific statutory duty, the courts will impose duties only expected from a "reasonable man" - an objective standard, of a hypothetical/typical/average/normal person, living in a particular social context.
2. "De minimis non-curat lex" - the law takes no account of trifles. - or miniscule beef flavouring
3. You never asked. There never was any misrepresentation.
So if miniscule amounts of beef in beef eating world bother you, then 1. cook your own food or 2. Eat in Indian restaurant or 3. Get a hug from your wife to salvage your shattered veggie soul or 4. vote with your $$ to make McD more vegen friendly
Picking a random instance I recall reading that upto a certain miniscule limit the presence of rats organs/faeces, in food grains is permitted, under the Indian Food Adulteration Act. I'd prefer beef anyday to rats faeces.
Forget the law - even God does not favour the veggens.
Sometimes when I go for late evening walk/run in a garden, or pass under a street light, I involuntarily inhale & swallow flies, insects and mosquitoes. Who should I sue to redress my violated veggie soul ? or my violated Hindu soul - (I don't quibble so long as I get the money)? Should I sue God/nature- how, where?
And I recall reading somewhere that vegens suffer from B-complex, protien and other deficiencies. We must pop the relevant pills. So did God really intend us to be vegens? But I think I digress from the main topic.

[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited May 07, 2001).]
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Nanhesru Ningyake,
Please tell me your thoughts on cross contamination? What happens when the grease used to cook the fries is also used to cook meat? What if a piece of meat touches the fries? What if a meat patty falls into the grease? Do you eat fries at other places? Are you sure that there is no meat involved in the process?
Do you think this does not happen?
How much researched this?

You say you wish you knew. I ask did you WANT to know? As I have mentioned before what about cross contamination? You liked the fries right? Did you not want to know?
Any other Vegetarians wish to comment on the cross contamination issue?
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Andy Ceponis,
I have to disagree with you even though I think that you may have just phrased it in a way I think harsh. I think that vegetarians deserve as much respect as anyone else. I do not think that they deserve special treatment or that what they have is a disease. Being a vegetarian is a choice just like smoking.
If a person wishes not to eat meat or in anyway restrict their diet it is none of my business (as long as it is legal!). I rarely respect or disrespect a person based on their choice of diet.
BTW, my parrots LOVE chicken!
 
Andy Ceponis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 782
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yeah i worded that wrong. I didnt mean to say i dont respect people based on their diets, but rather that i dont have more or less respect for people based on their diets.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I thought so Andy. I just wanted to clarify.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 86
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Everyone keeps saying that vegetarians are asking for special treatment...to change the french fry recipe or preparation process, etc. How is it asking for special treatment if someone wants to get a truthful answer to the question of whether the fries have any meat in them? If the answer was "a miniscule amount" or "I don't know" then most (if not all) vegetarians would simply choose not to eat there. The sense of betrayal and anger is because they were lied to...plain and simple. If we had no food labelling laws, then I agree that veggies should either eat at home or quit their crying. But I specifically asked Mickie D employees about the fry oil and was told it was 100% vegetable oil. Not 99.99%...100% vegetable oil. And the written nutritional (non-nutritional, actually) labels also didn't state there was any meat in the fries. That is just plain wrong, and I hope they have to pay for the omission. How hard would it be to include a tiny note on the label that said, "*may contain miniscule amounts of beef." It would still be up to the customers who cared about that stuff to ask for and read the label, but at least it would be honest and not misleading.
 
Rahul Rathore
Ranch Hand
Posts: 324
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
David
I suppose it is a mixed question of fact and law. What is the law? What are the facts? Whether the facts constitute a violation of the law? If yes then what is the consequence of such violation- criminal or civil? Whether there is any legal injury? If yes, whether it is a private injury or a public injury - is a class action warranted?
And I think that all interpretation of law and facts will revolve around the objective standard of a "reasonable man" - I am assuming that the normal-reasonable American would give as much significance to miniscule beef flavouring as to a single dust particle in the air we breathe.
Going to the facts:-
Who specifically did you ask - some responsible person? In what specific context - when making the actual purchase? What was the specific wording of the question you asked? And what was the specific reply? Did you communicate in such a manner, that it can be said, that the employee knew or ought reasonably to have known, that the absolute absence of beef had a special significance for you? Or that .0000001% of the beef flavouring would mentally shatter you ?
Actually answering 100% vegetable oil to a vague/general question may NOT be a lie - Firstly the beef flavouring may be an additive - not part of the oil - which is 100% veg oil Secondly it may be simply a way of saying that for all practical/reasonable purposes it is 100% veg oil - honestly the purity can NEVER be 100% - I know the bread I eat has very miniscule amounts of rat/insects - A "reasonable man" would NOT interpret such answer literally as 100% especially in this commercial situation. A "reasonable man" would not be bothered about the 0.0000001% of beef and if he is then he would take great care to emphasize that.
Do I lie when I say my height is 6'2" though actually it is 6' 1.999348"? Or when I say my age is X years though actually it is X years, Y Months, Z days, ...? Not unless the person asking demands the specific precision.
Going to the law:-
Does the law prohibit the beef additive? Or does the law prescribe that even if miniscule amount of beef is added that it should be listed as an ingredient? Or that all possible miniscule ingredients be listed? From reading the posts I get the impression that the answer is no.
Even assuming that there is some misrepresentation in the above situation, would it constitute anything more than a trifle for the average American. Is it anything more serious than you stealing a donut from your collegue - a criminal theft which the law ignores. Even if stealing donuts shatters your collegue for some special reason eg. religion.
And many other questions remain: What is the injury? Only mental suffering? Who can claim? Whether it is your private claim - in which you prove your peculiar fact and circumstances? Or can you claim for an entire class of people? Can the lawyer claim to represent all Hindus or all vegens- how/why?
Having said that one expects an advanced society like US to become even more kinder and gentler in the future - and maybe impose duties to protect the sensibilities of all possible minority groups. But that is a LUXURY expected of an advanced society - certainly NOT a priority. Certain groups like the disabled have more pressing and legitmate needs than the religious/lifestyle groups. What those in the US must be grateful for is that the basic rights & freedoms are protected - the right to physical freedom, the right to live with human dignity, the right to speak, the right to property/wealth ... I appreciate these much more, living in a country like India where death and suffering is widespread due to starvation, poverty, lack of shelter, a corrupt and apathetic beauracracy, a disregard for the basic human rights, a rampant and violent racism/ casteism/ communalism and so on- all threatening to rip apart the fabric of our society. Freedom from beef is NOT the priority.

[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited May 08, 2001).]
 
Sahir Shibley
Ranch Hand
Posts: 275
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Rahul,
You sound like a reformed law grad who has turned to information technology. They say you can take the techie out of the lawyer but you cant take the lawyer out of the techie
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I have not heard a reasonable explanation yet on why a vegetarian would go to the world�s biggest house of beef to eat?
Also people have noted that foods in a meaty environment may come in contact with meat, blood or meat particles. I also am interested in a reasonable response to this.
Robert Thompson
Longtime Lurker

PS: Hello everyone! Great website!
 
Rahul Rathore
Ranch Hand
Posts: 324
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yes, anyone who believes that he will get 100.00000% (not 99.99999%) meat-free food in an eating-house also offering meat is being naive and unreasonable. Yes, a reasonable man seeking 100.00000% veg purity would never go to McD. Assuming that the reasonable man can ever seek such utopian purity.
Nor can an employee in such a meat-mixed situation be faulted for calling a food 100% veg - though it may be 99.99999% veg. The employee has a right to expect that the customer coming to the meat-house is reasonable and isn't bothered about the unavoidable 0.00001% impurity in the offbeat veg offering. At least not unless the customer specifically insists on such precision.
That is the USP of the 100% pure-vegetarian restaurants, which boast of offering no meat products and are immensely popular among the Indians.

[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited May 08, 2001).]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3143
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
OK, here's my thoughts on cross-contamination.
While I was at college I took a summer job in a cake factory.
At this factory they produced two types of cake, some that contained nuts and others which didn't.
For the uninformed I will tell you that if someone with a nut allergy ate even the smallest piece of a nut it could kill them.
The two types of cake were made in the same room, often even on the same plant, the non-nut cakes were labelled at 100% nut free, therefore compeltely safe for someone with a nut allergy to eat.
Pains were taken to ensure that no piece of nut ever got into nut free cakes, it wasn't difficult or inconvient. The company has never had any action taken against them which claimed that there were traces of nut in any cake that claimed to be nut free.
My point being it's not difficult to prevent cross-contamination and anyway basic health and safety regualtions should prevent it, so I fail to see it as a potential argument for traces of meat being in so called "meat-free" products.
As for why veggies would eat at Mc Donalds, why shouldn't they? If Mc Donalds claim to serve a veggie alternative to their beef burgers why shouldn't we take advantage of that offer, if there wasn't a market for such a product why would they start selling it in the first place?
Vegetarianism is a choice for some, but not all. Don't forget that a LOT of veggies are so because of religious beliefs, and while to some degree that can be considered a choice, I don't think it really should be classed as such.
As an aside, I hear that this thread got a bit out of hand over the weekend. Come on guys I'm sure we can keep this discussion at a moture level without having to resort to insulting people personally.
Also as an aside, I think the culture of "suing just because you can" is ridiculous, there may be a lot of very legitimate claims out there, this may or may not be one of them, but lately it's difficult to tell since there are so many others out there taking advantage of loopholes in the legal system.
 
David Junta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 86
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Personally, I think McDonald's is crap. The only times I've eaten there, which is when I specifically asked about the beef thing, are the two times I drove across America. Could I have packed my own healthy food? Of course. But if you want to grab something quick and close to the main highways, Mickie D's is definitely convenient...the local whole foods store isn't.
As for all your legal rambling, Rahul (no offense ), it means nothing to me. You sound like Bill Clinton . I'm talking about simple customer service. If you blatantly lie to customers by telling them it is 100% vegetable oil then you should expect vegetarian customers to be upset when it turns out to contain some beef. If you want to avoid that, you should say there may be a tiny bit of beef in it. Legal matters aside, this is the sort of B.S. that customers are smart enough to see through. As for the courts, we'll see if you are right, Rahul. I suspect the courts would agree with the lawyer, right or wrong, simply because of the religious aspects for devout Hindus.
 
Andy Ceponis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 782
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think Rahul is the man here. Everyone listen to him...
Didnt someone say that they are within the law by not having to say there is meat in the fries because it is within some sort of tolerance renge or something?
But on to a more general question. Say i dont like seaweed. Now should everyone who makes "MILKshakes" have to tell everyone that there might be seaweed in the shakes? I would have no reasonable expectation of milkshakes containing seaweed. But i see no label anywhere. Same goes for 99% of the products we consume everyday. There are minisicule amounts of lots of things that we dont know about in products. Ususally there for a reason like to make it taste better or give it color etc....
Should we put huge labels on every single product stating everything that is in it? So when your at a restaurant and u order a dish they will hand you a giant paper with a listing? Sounds a bit silly huh?
 
Rahul Rathore
Ranch Hand
Posts: 324
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by David Junta:
You sound like Bill Clinton .


Thanks! I really liked him. Didn't you?
 
Rahul Rathore
Ranch Hand
Posts: 324
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by David Junta:
As for all your legal rambling, Rahul (no offense ), it means nothing to me


None taken.
it means nothing to me : I hope you took no offence. I apologise if I sounded like I was retaliating against you personally. No offence was intended. I was just enjoying exercising my freedom of expression on the bulletin board. I rambled but I like to think that I stuck to reason and truth.
Now resuming my Bill Clinton act :-
I think the debate has revealed much and educated us all. I think we all have a more wholesome understanding of the issue now than when we started.
I particularly hoped to see the end of the racial/ communal divide. I like the fact that now I am on the non-Hindu side of the fence, and you on the Hindu side. Also I think the hardliners on both sides have mellowed.
Hope I sound like Bill Clinton

[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited May 08, 2001).]
 
Rahul Rathore
Ranch Hand
Posts: 324
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by David Junta:
I suspect the courts would agree with the lawyer, right or wrong, simply because of the religious aspects for devout Hindus.


Intriguing ! Could you explain this further. I was unaware of this aspect of the American legal system.

[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited May 08, 2001).]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1012
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
well, America has become pathetically "politically correct." all somebody has to do is complain that they are "offended" and the corporations get fined.
2 new issues recently... environmentalists in Oregon are fighting to keep the farmers from irrigating their land because of a recent drougt... the environmentalists are trying to save an endangered fish. it turns out that this fish is a bottom feeder, and acutally thrives in LOW WATER ENVIRONMENTS... so, by banning the irrigation, the environmentalists are actually killing the fish. not to mention that the environmentalists will not have any food to eat if the farmers cannot grow it.
i forgot where this is, but is is out west somewhere... a group is trying to ban MOTHER'S DAY because it makes the kids from broken homes feel bad... what the HE** is this? if we keep banning stuff just because somebody is offended, we will be a country of heartless, emotionless, cold-blooded robots.
so, to answer your question: America is becoming way to afraid of offending someone. it seems that we are bending over backwards to make sure everyone feels "good" without regard to common scence. lawyers know that they will not win most of the cases, but if they can get the media attention then they can generate support from some of the public and then the corporation will be boycotted. the courts just might agree with this lawyer, but i doubt it. i think McD's will settle out of court to avoid lawyer's fees.
i am becomming more disgusted with these people every day.
[This message has been edited by Greg Harris (edited May 08, 2001).]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 233
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I understand small amounts of bug parts, rodent & bird droppings (animal feces), pesticides, etc. are allowed in our food and water. Does McDonalds list these contaminants are, or might be, in their foods? I'm not a vegetarian, but if there are, or might be, bug parts, animal feces, pesticides... in their fries, then what's the beef.
I think I'll sue my company, I just saw some lint floating in the air. They really should keep the air in my office cleaner after all I do have to breath.
 
Greg Harris
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1012
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
you have the idea, richard.
all a lawyer has to do is find someone with bronchial / alergy / breathing problems that will complain about their working conditions and then he / she can take the company to court for creating an unsafe / unhealthy work environment.
of course, just any small business will not do. it would have to be a big corporation with attorneys on a retainer that charge $500/hr so the court case would cost more than the settlement.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1072
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Programmer who used to be a lawyer : Is he the most dangerous programmer ?
 
Rahul Rathore
Ranch Hand
Posts: 324
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Thanks for the info Greg. I guess no human system - even the most advanced - can be perfect. The extortionist can usually get away as long as paying up is cheaper than fighting him.
The same forums which uphold the freedoms and rights of a pluralistic society, also become the tools of extortion in the hands of unscrupulous lawyers.
I suppose some deterrents like larger court fees, imposition of costs may be useful.

[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited May 08, 2001).]
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
On thing that seems to have been overlooked though - it's been suggested earlier by Jacob that the beef flavoring is added intentionally to make up for the switch from good-tasting-but-unhealthy oil formerly used, to the "100% pure" oil used today. While I agree it would be unreasonable to expect McDonalds to absolutely guarantee its food against all possible contaminants, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask them to at least list the ingredients that are intentionally added, if this is indeed the case. I don't think this is something that warrants punitive damages, since I doubt anyone at McDonalds thought that this would be an issue. I don't think they should be punished for failing to anticipate the importance this issue has for some people. However now that it has been brought up, I think they should be expected to at least make the info available to those who ask. And do they? Check out this current list of ingredients in McDonald's fries. It doesn't look to me as though the info is "readily available" yet.
For perspective - I'm a meat-eater myself. For health reasons, I try to favor white meat and fish over red meat, and I'm trying to give veggies a larger share of my total diet. But I'm still happy to consume the occasional burger as well. I'll also happily cook vegetarian, anytime I can find vegetarians at the store for $3.99 per pound or better.
 
Nanhesru Ningyake
Ranch Hand
Posts: 452
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Rahul, you have been delving deep into why this lawsuit should not win... that's not really my prime concern. Like I said earlier, all I care for from this is better awareness, for not just the food producers, but also the consumers. Like that classic question, "It's midnight, do you know where your children are?", concerned consumers ought to be asking, "Do I know where's this food's been, or what's in it?"...
The manufacturers should make it known, in clear and unambiguous terms, what's been intentionally added to their product. This information should be available upon request; and in some cases, some form of advertising should be used to make the consumer aware. These cases could be potential health hazards (like presence of peanuts), or religious concerns (like halal/kosher).
That gets me to think, how did the kosher supporters succeed in getting the industry to recognize compliance? Surely that system would have faced similar opposition, right? If there was a Javaranch then, someone would have posted a newslink to this 'stupid' lawsuit where a lawyer's suing a restaurant for using non-kosher meat, and that millions of people of that faith have been betrayed...
RR, your arguments made for some amusing reading, especially that part about rat droppings. I think the Indian Government passed that law because they couldn't keep the rats out of their grain godowns My grandparents were farmers, and we never had that problem. Our rats were toilet-trained.
>Please tell me your thoughts on cross contamination
Sure, that's a possibility. I normally cook my own food; but there are circumstances when I will need to eat outside. It's tough to imagine what's happening inside the kitchen - I'd rather not! But in places like Mexican restaurants, where they usually prepare the food in front of you, you can clearly see what's happening. Like, at El Famous Burrito, they keep a pile of beef in one corner, and whenever a beef burrito is ordered, the guy just drags on a handful of that beef onto the tortilla, leaving a trail of beef on that hotplate. Next, when you order a veggi burrito, the tortilla sits exactly where the previous burrito sat... yikes!
>Also I think the hardliners on both sides have mellowed.
That's because Jim keeps editing our posts
>Check out this current list of ingredients in McDonald's fries
McD terms the minuscule amounts of beef as 'natural flavoring'. And that is listed in the ingredients. How could anyone sue them
Well folks, peace, love and mushrooms [Showing V sign ]



[This message has been edited by Nanhesru Ningyake (edited May 08, 2001).]
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
>> Also I think the hardliners on both sides have mellowed.
>That's because Jim keeps editing our posts
Actually I haven't edited anything since my post at the top of page 2. All the "edited by" comments on this page are from the original authors. See, I've trained you well now.
BTW, a special "meritorious conduct" award goes to Andy, Greg, and Ersin, who started to get into a heated discussion, but smoothed it out themselves without any intrusive Sheriffs. Which probably goes to show that I should just mind my own business, as y'all are intelligent adults, and probably would've sorted things out yourselves anyway.
So now I'm shifting tactics, and trying to provoke someone with comments about vegetarians going for $3.99/lb, but no one seems to be biting. So to speak. Oh well...
> Check out this current list of ingredients in McDonald's fries
> McD terms the minuscule amounts of beef as 'natural
> flavoring'. And that is listed in the ingredients.
D'oh! I should have noticed that.
It does make one wonder though - what exactly can you legally list as "natural flavorings"? There are all sorts of things which are natural, and have some sort of flavor (for better or worse), which I really don't want to find in my meals...
 
Rahul Rathore
Ranch Hand
Posts: 324
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here I (better known as RAMBLO ) go again:-

Originally posted by Nanhesru Ningyake:
Rahul, you have been delving deep into why this lawsuit should not win...


That's because I wasn't promised a share of the loot. My soul needs salvation too ! (...drooling again...)
But seriously I think what I said was relevant for deciding the legitmacy and propriety of filing the law suit, which I think is the issue here. I like to think I was doing more than merely assessing the odds in the litigation gamble.
So what really is the suit for? This:-

1. publicity for the GREAT & NOBLE lawyer - bless him.
2. big $$$$$$ for the G & N lawyer - Nirvana !.

About saving the Hindu souls, do you seriously believe in it?
Incidentally I think about 0.00000000001% of all Hindus would be bothered about the 0.0000000001% of the beef flavouring. Most Hindus have not heard about McD. Many others who know about McD cannot afford it. Still others who are sensible enough not to go to the beef den and then cry that they smell beef. And finally there are those who couldn't be bothered about the miniscule amounts of beef flavouring.
Apparently the G & N lawyer is taking his in the "land of opportunity". I don't think his prospects would be as bright back here in the land of cow-worshippers. That's because he would be upstaged by the G & N outfits protecting our religion, who would do their noble duty of breaking the window-panes & furniture of McD. The same G & N protectors had earlier burnt valentine card shops because they violated the Hindu religion. I fervently thank God - Hinduism will flourish under the protection of such G & N lawyers and G & N political outfits. They will rid the world of beef - God bless them.
Seriously I think the Hindus should vociferously oppose the lawyer or at least disown him because:-
1. Even if the law suit has any iota of legal basis, it is unethical, improper and unwarranted. Its motivations are ulterior and perverse.
2. The law suit is not for salvaging the Hindu souls assuming that such a thing is possible. What it brings is fame(notoriety?) and big bucks for the lawyer !
3. By supporting this lawsuit the Hindus will only appear moronic and/or fanatic and/or unscrupulous- and rightly so.
4. The law suit can damage more legitmate claims in the future.
And if you think that bogus class actions cannot injure legitmate claims, then think again. India has developed Public Interest Litigations (following the US example). Suddenly lawyers had a great tool for blackmail, and unscrupulous could hardly restrain their glee. A random instance: A corrupt local authority secretly allotted lands to its favoured few depriving the Rightful Claimants. Before the RC could find out, a few friends of the illegal beneficiaries filed a PIL against the illegal orders, claiming to represent the public interest of all residents of the local area. They deliberately misprosecuted the case, and did not present evidence against the illegal orders. Ultimately the Court had to dismiss the case, holding the orders to be legal. When the wretched RC came to know of the allotment orders they rushed to the Court, only to find that the court had already found the same allotment orders to be legal ! Their claim was barred by res-judicata ! That was 7 years ago - they are still fighting - maybe their great-grandchildren will ultimately get justice. Of course this has little to do with the current law-suit. I am only highlighting how legitmate forums unwittingly become a tool for the unscrupulous and that class actions are not the G & N actions they purport to be.


that's not really my prime concern. Like I said earlier, all I care for from this is better awareness, ...


That sounds just fine. I was more worried about your "utter rage" and support for the law suit.


These cases could be potential health hazards (like presence of peanuts), or religious concerns (like halal/kosher).


Is miniscule beef flavouring a health-hazard? If not then I think we should not artificially inject legitmacy by clubbing it with health hazards. Health-hazards are matters of life & death, religious contamination is just spiritual/mental suffering - maybe it affects after-life, but I think current life is more important. Maybe miniscule ingredients should be listed in the future - but there is NO cause for a law suit in this particular case.


That gets me to think, how did the kosher supporters succeed in getting the industry to recognize compliance? Surely that system would have faced similar opposition, right? If there was a Javaranch then, someone would have posted a newslink to this 'stupid' lawsuit where a lawyer's suing a restaurant for using non-kosher meat, and that millions of people of that faith have been betrayed...


Interesting ! Are you saying that kosher compliance was achieved through a law suit ? Is that correct ? Otherwise, I think there are many legitmate options available in a vibrant pluralistic society like US. Use your $$ in legitmate channels. Withold your custom from McDemon. Build pressure groups. Lobby. Elect and fund those who support you. Write in news-media to increase public awareness and sensitivity. Get representatives to pass some laws, regulations. Take full advantage of the information-based society. Write in the cyber-forums like Javaranch (but not to support the lawsuit or to express "utter rage").


I think the Indian Government passed that law because they couldn't keep the rats out of their grain godowns My grandparents were farmers, and we never had that problem. Our rats were toilet-trained.


I suspect the American rats aren't any better (See richard's post above)


McD terms the minuscule amounts of beef as 'natural flavoring'. And that is listed in the ingredients. How could anyone sue them


Cows are part of nature . But I meant that seriously also. It is certainly more natural than chemical flavouring. It is not so farfetched - at least not in miniscule amounts, unaware that it gives the spiritual horrors to a small strange group of people. I think these things occur everywhere. I may be wrong but I vaguely recall that medicinal capsule-shells are made of horses/cattle hooves. Or maybe flavouring of some jelly has these things. I am lazily hoping that somebody who knows may tell us. Generally these things are covered by some general phrase like artificial/natural flavours. However they can be more specific in the future - but NO cause for lawsuit.

Ok enough argument - Lets get serious
I hereby propose to file a lawsuit which should agree with all "true nerds" (see Sahir's post above). I propose to file a suit to recover $ 100000000.......(space limited) to salvage the souls of millions of nerds ravaged by Microsoft . (Guys I keep the money - OK?)
Quote for the day:- "If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick-boxing"

[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited May 09, 2001).]
 
Rahul Rathore
Ranch Hand
Posts: 324
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Daniel Dunleavy:
Rahul,
If I ever get in trouble, I am calling on you.
Microsoft should have hired you for their defense.

Dan



THANKS !! I am sending this letter of reference to MS.
Any MS spies on Javaranch territory - listen to Dan and report to GREAT BILL.
I HAVE A DREAM $$$$$$$$$$$

What is reasonable ? If you could answer that then where would the poor lawyers go ?
 
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
> Any MS spies on Javaranch territory - listen to Dan and
> report to GREAT BILL.
OK Sahir, you know what to do.
 
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic