Last Tuesday, a federal appeals court revived one of the most ludicrous lawsuits ever imagined. For the third time, two New York adolescents will have the chance to make the case that their obesity is entirely due to McDonald's food selection and advertising tactics. The case abandons common sense and personal responsibility altogether and offers the possibility for frivolous activity to take place within U.S. courts.
Maintaining a healthy weight isn't simple, and while some Americans could use guidance in their decisions, the choice to indulge is ultimately their own. Accusations of luring advertisements and high-calorie menu items hold true in only one sense: Industries are naturally trying to make a dollar. There are plenty of scams and appealing opportunities to consumers worldwide, but in the end it's nothing personal-it's business. Consumers have the mindset to ignore many misleading media devices, so why should it be any different when it comes to dining selection?
Businesses, however, would be threatened by these outrageous accusations even if the lawsuits had remained closed. The suit has already proved bad for businesses, as it has brought about a new wave of litigation against a number of restaurants and manufacturers similar to those filed against the tobacco industry several years ago. This is causing quite a scare, considering certain liabilities have already been tied to the fast food industry, and restaurants such as McDonald's are facing higher insurance costs and are being forced to discontinue Super Size meals and other menu options.
It should be considered that many Americans aren't ready to give up food items they categorize as occasional indulgences or rewards. It is possible, after all, for a person to eat a Super Size meal in responsible moderation and still live an otherwise healthy lifestyle with decent cholesterol levels and no risk for diabetes. Why should one person's lack of self control become a punishment for most conscientious Americans? For those who can't minimize the urge to Super Size their meal, perhaps they should try with more diligence to avoid businesses offering such possibilities in the first place.
We have been taught the basics of a healthy diet since youth, not just in the sense that it may have been instilled in us by our parents, but in considering that the content was present within most education systems. In addition, blaming advertisers is plenty controversial in itself when diet aids and exercise machinery receive as much commercial time as anything else. As children, we were expected to make mistakes. As youths, we learned how to correct them. And as adults we must carry out our knowledge through responsible decision-making. It is as simple as that.
The only people who might view this lawsuit as legitimate are those who have been searching for an escape from their own obesity issues. It seems they are forgetting the possibility that their weight issues may be due to lack of exercise or family history. Maybe their search should come to an end with the current of new food guidelines. Most of the content hasn't changed, but the update is a strong reminder and its recommended procedures are sure to bring about more success than any lawsuit could provide.
The arguments against this case are endless. If the two New York teens who started this whole charade were embarrassed to begin with, they should feel even more ashamed by their persistence. Their claim has been denied twice, and now it is being reopened by a U.S. appeals court that feels important information was left out. But in a case with no merit or legitimacy such as this one, it is impossible for any valid information to have been left out. Let the courts not fuel an unnecessary fire, but instead debunk the raging inaccuracies of these so-called victims of the fast food industry.
Jessica Sprang is a sophomore majoring in journalism. She can be reached at opinion@dailycardinal.com. Her column runs every Monday in
The Daily Cardinal.
