Local mother angered by McDonald’s deception

[PUGalicious]

(Originally posted here)


I received the following e-mail this morning from an Oklahoma City mother who is outraged by McDonald’s recent admission that its french fries contain milk and wheat ingredients.

I am the mother of a beautiful 15 year old daughter who has celiac sprue which is an allergy to wheat, rye, barley and oats. I found out tonight that McDonalds has been lying about the ingredients of their french fries. They previously had claimed that their french fries were gluten free or free of wheat.

I am physically ill with the thought that I have been purchasing McDonald french fries for my daughter all these years without knowing they were poison to her. I am really quite angry at all of this and just request that you pass this information on to your family and friends.

I will not be purchasing anything from McDonalds ever again as a result of these lies. I cannot believe that the ‘fast food giant’ could be so irresponsible. I ask that you please keep my daughter in your thoughts and prayers and please feel free to contact me if you have any suggestions about what we can do about this.

My daughter’s name is Whitney and she attends a performing arts high school in Oklahoma City.

I don’t blame this mother and I share her outrage. Most of us (not-so-wisely) accept the fact that fast food is not generally good for our nutritional health, but we willingly choose to accept the health risks for convenience — at least those health risks that we know about. When a company willfully deceives its consumers about its products, which every well could put some people’s lives in jeopardy, that is gross negligence. McDonald’s had previously declared the flavoring of its fries as “safe for people with food allergies and other dietary sensitivities.” Now, they acknowledge (reluctantly, I’m sure) that they misled the public. Some lies can have deadly or seriously harmful consequences. McDonald’s should be ashamed of itself.

In a related note, if you’ve never seen the documentary Super Size Me, it’s worth at least the rental fee. It’s very interesting, and it’s quite relevant to this latest McDonald’s story. Here’s the official synopsis for the movie:
http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=t...1&a=B0002OXVBO

Why are Americans so fat? Two words: fast food. What would happen if you ate nothing but fast food for an entire month? Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock does just that and embarks on the most perilous journey of his life. The rules? For 30 days he can’t eat or drink anything that isn’t on McDonald’s menu; he must wolf three squares a day; he must consume everything on the menu at least once and supersize his meal if asked. Spurlock treks across the country interviewing a host of experts on fast food and an equal number of regular folk while chowing down at the Golden Arches. Spurlock’s grueling drive-through diet spirals him into a physical and emotional metamorphosis that will make you think twice about picking up another Big Mac.

[mranderson]

This "mother" should have known that practically all fast food is "poison." Then she should have told her daughter no when she, the daughter, threw a temper tantrum and forced mommy to take her to McDonalds to see Ronald McDonald. I do not blame McDonalds or any other fast food. I blame the public who eat tons of that crap then cry when they gain a pound claiming the company failed to tell them it was bad for them.

Just another way for the greedy professional suer to raise prices by stupidity.

[bandnerd]

She's not complaining about her daughter getting fat from the food, she's complaining about how they were not forthcoming with the truth about ingredients. Would you automatically assume there were wheat products in your french fries? I wouldn't--I would expect potatoes, salt, and oil. While most of us would simply gain a pound by eating that crap, her daughter could have had a serious allergic reaction or possibly even have died. I think I'd be complaining to the company, too!

[Midtowner]

This "mother" should have known that practically all fast food is "poison." Then she should have told her daughter no when she, the daughter, threw a temper tantrum and forced mommy to take her to McDonalds to see Ronald McDonald. I do not blame McDonalds or any other fast food. I blame the public who eat tons of that crap then cry when they gain a pound claiming the company failed to tell them it was bad for them.

Just another way for the greedy professional suer to raise prices by stupidity.

You completely missed the point. This is more like if x has a peanut allergy, restaurant y represents that the food is safe for people with peanut allergies while cooking their food in peanut oil.

Would you contend that y has no duty to x as far as x's reaction to y's food after y has made the representation that their food is safe? How far would you extend this concept?

How about if your car manufacturer told you that they were going to install airbags, but they decided that it'd be cheaper not to?

Perhaps we could now say that a parachute manufacturer can advertise that there is a safety chute, but decide not to pack one?

Maybe the manufacturers of baby cribs and strollers can misrepresent the safety of their products, or just produce dangerous products on purpose to maximize their bottom line?

Where does your thinking that these people sueing are in the wrong end?

The only valid point here to be skeptical on is that this mother does not actually disclose that her daughter suffered any injury as the result of McDonald's breach of their duty to inform her about any unsafe conditions that no reasonable person would expect to find. Without injury, you only have a duty and a breach -- that's not enough in most cases to win a lawsuit.

I also don't recall reading anything saying that this mother has filed a lawsuit. There may have been a link to something saying that, but I never saw that.

[Randy]

You completely missed the point. This is more like if x has a peanut allergy, restaurant y represents that the food is safe for people with peanut allergies while cooking their food in peanut oil.

Would you contend that y has no duty to x as far as x's reaction to y's food after y has made the representation that their food is safe? How far would you extend this concept?

How about if your car manufacturer told you that they were going to install airbags, but they decided that it'd be cheaper not to?

Perhaps we could now say that a parachute manufacturer can advertise that there is a safety chute, but decide not to pack one?

Maybe the manufacturers of baby cribs and strollers can misrepresent the safety of their products, or just produce dangerous products on purpose to maximize their bottom line?

Where does your thinking that these people sueing are in the wrong end?

The only valid point here to be skeptical on is that this mother does not actually disclose that her daughter suffered any injury as the result of McDonald's breach of their duty to inform her about any unsafe conditions that no reasonable person would expect to find. Without injury, you only have a duty and a breach -- that's not enough in most cases to win a lawsuit.

I also don't recall reading anything saying that this mother has filed a lawsuit. There may have been a link to something saying that, but I never saw that.

I agree with mranderson. We are talking fast food here, not Steak and Ale or Outback Steakhouse. I would expect an establishment such as S & A and O.S., to be able to tell me what kind of oils they use in their cooking. They have professional chefs that do this for a living.

McDonalds has high school dropouts doing their cooking. They couldn't care less how they cook your burger or what they cook it in. To trust any fast food restaurant to tell you the truth about what they cook with, or what their ingredients are, is completely crazy.

Most all fast food is fattening and high in cholestoral. If this mother thought for a second that she would be told the truth from a McDonalds employee about what was in their food, then she is the one at fault. She needed to use common sense. She needs to take her daughter to a healthier restaurant.

[PUGalicious]

Randy, as usual, you've missed the point — and the facts. This mother did not get her information from an employee at a local McDonald's. The information came from the McDonald's corporation. The company made a statement the turned out to be false.

Everyone accepts that fast food is not the healthiest food. But the issue here has to do with a food allergy, which is not something to mess around with. McDonald's had previously claimed that their french fries were gluten free or free of wheat — not a healthy/non-healthy issue, but a food allergy issue. These aren't high school dropouts, but leading business people in the largest fast food chain in the world.

I agree that consumers can't rely on Corporate America telling the truth. But disparaging this mother, claiming she wasn't using common sense, is ridiculous (although typical). A little common sense would have helped you figure out this wasn't about cholesterol, fat or high-school dropouts.

[Randy]

Randy, as usual, you've missed the point — and the facts. This mother did not get her information from an employee at a local McDonald's. The information came from the McDonald's corporation. The company made a statement the turned out to be false.

Everyone accepts that fast food is not the healthiest food. But the issue here has to do with a food allergy, which is not something to mess around with. McDonald's had previously claimed that their french fries were gluten free or free of wheat — not a healthy/non-healthy issue, but a food allergy issue. These aren't high school dropouts, but leading business people in the largest fast food chain in the world.

I agree that consumers can't rely on Corporate America telling the truth. But disparaging this mother, claiming she wasn't using common sense, is ridiculous (although typical). A little common sense would have helped you figure out this wasn't about cholesterol, fat or high-school dropouts.

Once again, you left out a vital piece of information in your post. Nothing in your post said that this information came from the McDonald's Corporation. It just said that McDonalds admitted making a mistake. If you would include the correct information in your posts, then more people would be willing to believe you.

[PUGalicious]

Perhaps if you had paid attention to the original post, you would have noticed that the line "McDonald’s recent admission that its french fries contain milk and wheat ingredients" was a link to the article. If you would actually read all the information provided, then more people might be willing to not write you off so quickly.

[bandnerd]

Fast food restaurants aren't just allowed to do whatever, though it may seem that way. They have regulations about what oil is used, where the food comes from, how it is prepared. Yes, sometimes you'll get some high school drop out making your fries, but they should be the same fries you get at every Micky-D's. How else would they be able to give nutritional information? I don't think the FDA would allow national chains to do whatever they want with no answers to a higher authority.

[Midtowner]

Once again, you left out a vital piece of information in your post. Nothing in your post said that this information came from the McDonald's Corporation. It just said that McDonalds admitted making a mistake. If you would include the correct information in your posts, then more people would be willing to believe you.

Randy, how do you believe that McDonalds makes official statements?

via clown?

Here's something that will help you any time you read the newspaper or any other account of factual goings-on. When a statement says "McDonalds," "Olive-Garden," "Wal-Mart," or something to that effect, they are not referring to Joe Blow that waxes the floors. They're not talking about Ronald the spokesclown or Giuseppi, the head wine steward. They're talking about official press releases from the corporation or other official statements by the corporation. In this case, we're talking about a change on the website where McDonalds simply changed their disclosure as to what the actual ingredients were.

Now, as to your reply to me... there are no "professional chefs" at Outback or Steak and Ale. Those restaurants receive prepackaged food with specific preparation instructions. They are prepared in the kitchen per those instructions in most cases by the same quality illegal alien type employee in either McDonalds or Outback. The quality is different, but the preparation, etc. isn't. We don't start to talk about professional chefs until we start to talk about restaurants like Roccocco, Nix, etc. professional chefs make their own menus.

In either case, there is ALWAYS a duty for the owner of a business to disclose dangers on the premises that are not open and apparent. The fact that the french fries and Big Macs contain lots of unhealthy things is obvious and known to all. The fact that they contain wheat gluten is not. In fact, if someone wanted to find out for sure, they could log onto the McDonalds website and find a list of the ingredients -- not as you suggest, ask some high school student/dropout. In this case, the website misrepresented the ingredients causing potential harm (we'll get to the p word in the next paragraph). Someone in the corporation discovered this error and went ahead and made the correction. This is apparently what prompted the lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these cases will probably assert that McDonalds with its vast resources and professional food safety people knew or should have known that wheat gluten is a danger to some. They will allege that McDonalds could have helped these people to avoid any harm simply by disclosing the existance of these ingredients. The plaintiffs will say that McDonalds failed to do so, causing the plaintiffs some sort of harm, that McDonalds wrongdoing was the cause of tha tharm and that McDonalds was negligent. The end.

What I haven't heard, and what I would find to be the most interesting aspect of these cases is what harm did the plaintiffs suffer? Did they have any medical bills, any sickness, any major symptoms? In other words, were they actually damaged in some way. Unless they can get over that hurdle, these courts will throw out the claims as frivolous anyhow. Just wait and let the tort system do its job. In most cases, it ends up doing the right thing.