In what must be a first, Brazilian Judge Joao Ghisleni Filho ruled that a former franchise manager must be paid $17,500.00 because he gained 65 pounds while working for McDonalds Restaurant for over 12 years. The unnamed employee claimed he had to sample food each day to meet quality standards and to appease “mystery clients” that McDonalds hired to secretly inspect the restaurant. The unidentified man’s biggest gripe — McDonalds had the audacity to offer free lunches to employees.
U.S. consumers spend about $150 billion dollars on fast food that is marketed to children and to lower income adults. McDonalds claims it presents healthy choices along with its high fat-high sodium offerings. In 2003, a New York family sued the hamburger giant alleging that, by manipulating the taste of food, fat and sugar content, and its aggressive marketing to children mislead consumers about the nutritional value of its food and led directly to their daughter’s obesity. A federal judge threw the suit out of court, but the Industry responded with a so-called “Cheeseburger Bill” to ban such suits in the future. The Bill passed the House in 2005 but stalled in the Senate.
Over one half of all American adults are considered obese, and hundreds of thousands of deaths are attributed to obesity. Will “Big Fat” become the next “Big” like “Big Tobacco” and “Big Oil.” If we’re looking in Brazil, the answer might be just wait and see.
–Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Source: Yahoo News
Tony Sidaway, November 1, 2010 at 3:49 pm post
I agree
In his posting, guest blogger Mark also refers to the “Personal Responsibility in Food
Consumption Act.” (the so-called “Cheeseburger bill”) which passed the House in 2003 but never received a Senate vote. This tendency of harmful customer-facing industries to use part of their trade surplus to actively fight against the interests of their own customers worries me. A company facing legitimate public concern about the healthiness of its products has the option of seeking more healthy ways of serving the public. The tobacco industry rightly earned its dreadful public image by attempting to push full responsibility onto its customers, at the same time taking active steps to bamboozle the public and compromise or dilute the scientific research that was consistently finding their toxic products to be a serious danger to public health.
MacDonalds does show a sense of social responsibility that is entirely absent in the tobacco industry. They should be pressed hard to keep to the narrow path.
mespo wrote: Will “Big Fat” become the next “Big” like “Big Tobacco” and “Big Oil.” If we’re looking in Brazil, the answer might be just wait and see.
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO Published: October 31, 2010
In a First, Brazil Elects a Woman as President
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/world/americas/01brazil.html?_r=1&hp
“In her victory speech, Ms. Rousseff pledged to focus on eradicating poverty, which she described as an “abyss that still keeps us from being a developed nation.” She has indicated that she favors giving the state greater control over the economy, especially the oil industry, potentially steering the country further to the left.”
She’ll be getting together with the Obamas, jawing with Michelle about “healthy eating”, doing an interview with Mika of Morning Joe…
Is mespo prescient?
Oh, Blouise,
You warned me, but did I listen? 🙂
Blouise and anon nurse,
I’m glad to see you ladies as well.
To clarify:
Bud said, “I tried anon nurse.”
My response should have read
What was the outcome of the trial?
——
Very sorry mespo — it’s the weekend. Great submissions.
Alright anon nurse.
Thanks for the fun.
Have a great one, and we’ll talk soon.
Bud,
🙂
Long day and I’m all out…
anon nurse 1, October 30, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Bud,
You did? What was the outcome? 🙂
—————————————————————-
Sometimes things don’t always turn out great…
I mean how am I supposed to know the difference between
jeans and genes… HUH???
Bud,
You did? What was the outcome? 🙂
anon nurse 1, October 30, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Blouise wrote:
Buddha, I am so glad to see you!
I’ll second that emotion…
(Let’s see. Bud…dha. Hmmmm… 🙂 )
—————————————————————-
I tried anon nurse…
Blouise:
Bud
1, October 30, 2010 at 1:01 am
Oh my God, I can’t believe I just hit the submit tab….
==============================================================
Don’t worry … it doesn’t hit back
🙂
Blouise wrote:
Buddha, I am so glad to see you!
I’ll second that emotion…
(Let’s see. Bud…dha. Hmmmm… 🙂 )
“Tasting” was the job requirement in question.
“Gobbling” was an individual choice.
I find it comical that relatively logical humans insist on their “rights” versus the government, and then think that same government ought to step in because they lack the discipline to keep our mouths shut sometimes.
How many hours of formal training did this mental midget need, to come to the decision that those salads were edible, too?
If the employee was required to “taste food” then he was almost certainly a manager. So next time you stop into your favorite fast food restaurant, you can rest easy, knowing that matters like cleanliness and food prep are being supervised by somebody who – just possibly – is too stupid to pay attention to his own giant “calorie chart” hanging on the wall.
Excuse me, while I seat the next diner:
“Whiner, party of one? Whiner?
Buddha,
I am so glad to see you!
“I’ve met plenty of sommeliers in my life. Funny how they all managed to stay sober.” (PatricParamedic)
“But I think the requirement to taste the food regularly is what makes the case. A possible defence would be that they trained their staff, as sommeliers are trained, to taste without consuming.” (Tony Sidaway)
Although I think Patric’s point is well made …Tony S’s response answers it nicely … not being a lawyer, I try to put myself on the jury … how would I vote? Gotta go with Tony.
This sounds like a sensible ruling. The employee was exposed to an environment that adversely affected his health. So he could have brought in his own healthy food from home for lunch? Arguable, but employers commonly offer free meals as an inducement to productivity and if they provide unhealthy food free to employees they’re doing something a bit more than when they sell the same food to customers who have a choice of where to be at lunch break.
But I think the requirement to taste the food regularly is what makes the case. A possible defence would be that they trained their staff, as sommeliers are trained, to taste without consuming. If they did that, of course. If they didn’t they bear partial responsibility for the employee’s unhealthy outcome.
The principles should be part and parcel of the basic responsibility of all food providers for workplace health. No difference in principle between this and the responsibility of a wristwatch manufacturer to its employees who may lick a radioactive paintbrush.
“Blouise 1, October 29, 2010 at 11:39 pm
. . .
Are you telling me there is no Santa Claus?”
No, I’m not Blouise, but here’s what Chico Marx has to say about the subject . . .
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS2khYJZKwA&fs=1&hl=en_US]
Blouise,
Do you think anon nurse respects me now?
Blouise,
Do you think anon nurse will still respect me in the morning???