Subway is suing Canadian news network CBC over a TV segment in which the show “Marketplace” claims that Subway’s chicken only contains 50 percent chicken. According to the report, which was broadcast in February, many of the Subway restaurants in southern Ontario use meat that is actually half soy protein. Subway issued a statement calling the report “false and misleading,” and said that its food is 100 percent what it claims to be.

Our chicken is made with 100% chicken + spices and marinade. The findings as reported on the show are wildly inaccurate.

— SUBWAY® Canada (@SUBWAYCanada) March 1, 2017

The restaurant chain let two independent labs in the U.S. and in Canada test its chicken products and posted the results on the company’s website. According to those tests, there is a small amount of soy in the seasoning to maintain moisture and texture, but that is far from the 50 percent CBC claimed.

CBC had researcher Matt Harnden at Trent University’s Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory test five chicken sandwiches from different fast food restaurants, and reached the conclusion that the one from Subway had only 53.6 percent chicken, and chicken strips from Subway only contained 42.8 percent of the white meat. Sandwiches tested from the other restaurants all clocked in at about 85-89 percent chicken.

But all of the sandwiches tested contained an average of 16 ingredients in their chicken. CBC’s test showed that the fast food chicken contained about a fourth less protein than a home-cooked bird would.

CBC will defend against Subway lawsuit after ‘Marketplace’ said chicken at many Ontario outlets was roughly half soy https://t.co/9yGIzf2LkN pic.twitter.com/MMRYpkFNGS

— Yahoo Canada Finance (@YahooFinanceCA) April 18, 2017

Subway initially asked CBC to retract its information, but the broadcaster didn’t respond. “We have issued a Notice of Action in Canada against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that asks for $210 million in damages over allegations made by its program, ‘Marketplace,’ that are defamatory and absolutely false,” Subway said.

So it’s word against word, and lab against lab, in the chicken feud. CBC has said it has no comment, except that it will defend itself.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Subway Sues Canadian Network Over Claims that its Chicken isn’t All Chicken appeared first on Law Street.

Nearly 70 percent of American adults are overweight or obese. We spend trillions of dollars every year on healthcare and about half of that budget is spent treating so-called lifestyle diseases like diabetes and heart disease, types of which are largely preventable. The traditional image of a person in poverty being thin with hunger no longer rings true in the West and the developing world. The phenomenon of “fat with hunger” is now on the rise–people who can only afford cheap, processed carbohydrates that are bereft of nutritional value. They are consuming enough calories to live but they aren’t getting the appropriate nutrients to live well.

The problem is both cultural and personal. Americans have become more inactive in our jobs and our leisure activities and many people find it difficult to incorporate exercise into their schedules on top of their other responsibilities. In many areas, people are trapped in food deserts, where they have no access to nutritious options, or they simply cannot afford the types of foods they should be eating or a gym membership. These realities prevent many Americans from living a healthier lifestyle. But like other unhealthy habits, the structure of society can only take so much of the blame. Individuals still have a personal responsibility for their health.

If that is the case, how far should the government go to promote healthy choices? There are several tools that the government can use to encourage citizens to make certain choices. It can provide tax breaks or cash incentives, advocate, re-design cities, and punish those who don’t comply. But how much do we want the government to “help” us make good choices?

Carrots and Sticks

In policy making, as in diplomacy, there are carrots and sticks–where “carrots” are rewards and “sticks” are punishments. Both are used to incentivize positive behavior. Ideally, people will behave in such a way as to avoid the stick and/or get the carrot, and that behavior will benefit them and society. Mexico, which now has a rate of obesity similar to the United States, uses the carrot approach in Mexico City, where riders who do 10 squats are able to ride the subway for free. It’s a direct and immediate incentive to do some exercise. Mexico is also using the stick approach by taxing highly caloric food and beverages.

Take a look at this explanation of what Mexico is doing from PBS:

The program in Mexico is a good example of the four tools governments have at their disposal: direct policy and physical changes, financial rewards, financial punishments, and advocacy. Mexico gives free subway rides to participants, taxes products it doesn’t want citizens to consume, builds new public gyms in cities, and uses the bully pulpit to promote healthy lifestyles.

The United States is using some of these methods as well. In her Let’s Move campaign, First Lady Michelle Obama takes advantage of her unique ability to communicate with the public to advocate for increased physical activity and healthy eating, particularly for children and adolescents. She has taken some flak for her efforts but many Americans are supportive of public figures using their stature to promote healthy living.

Cities in the United States are also taking their own steps to change behavior. For example, Washington, D.C. is going to eliminate fees for residents in city gyms. It cuts revenues for the city, but officials believe that in the long run it will save money in terms of costs for treating chronic diseases that are associated with obesity. If free access to a gym encourages individuals to exercise who otherwise would not, those individuals will be healthier and it will cost less to treat diseases. Free gym access is not as direct a financial benefit as a free subway ticket, but it is an example of a direct financial reward that a city can offer to mold behavior. In Chicopee, Massachusetts, city employees can earn $25 dollars a month for walking 7,000 steps a day, five days each week. The cash incentives seem to work as participation increased significantly after a financial reward was put in place.

D.C. is also considering adding more bike lanes in areas where residents are commuting to work via bicycle, to further encourage this behavior. These changes are sometimes met with tension–bike lanes can reduce available street parking and may favor one group of citizens over another–and sometimes these proposals are viewed along racial and socio-economic lines. In D.C., altering the city’s landscape could adversely affect older, black residents in those neighborhoods who do not tend to bike to work. On the other hand, the understanding of who is actually biking to work may be mistaken.

Repeat Users

Companies actively market products that contain high levels of salt, sugar and fat to consumers. They have tapped into a delicious, deadly, and biologically motivated combination of chemicals that keep consumers coming back for more. Anyone who has ever had fast food can appreciate the unholy alliance of the salty and the sweet and food companies profit from the natural human tendency to seek out highly caloric food as a means of survival. The marketing of these products is part of the issue with the rise of obesity, according to Michael Moss the author of “Salt, Sugar, Fat: How The Food Giants Hooked Us.“

Watch the video below as Moss talks with a former CDC official on PBS NewsHour.

It is precisely the “heavy users” who we want to dissuade from purchasing fast food or unhealthy food in grocery stores. Taxes on these foods, like the ones used in Mexico, can alter these consumption patterns. But they might just be making it more expensive for people to purchase the foods they want or the only kinds of foods they have access to. These taxes are also difficult to achieve politically, with backlash from both consumers and the food industry.

Oklahoma City, a community where obesity rates have tripled in two decades, has made some progress in combatting obesity, but it did not have the political will or ability to do so by challenging the fast food industry. The principle way that Mick Cornett, the mayor of Oklahoma City, chose to combat obesity in his city was through the encouragement of individuals to take personal responsibility for their actions and to make better choices. Instead of taxing soda, or limiting the amount that can be sold, the emphasis was placed on encouraging people to not order a 40-ounce soda, even though they can.

The argument of personal choice also applies to school lunches. For example, in Oklahoma City, officials need to determine options to offer children. Kids want to eat burgers, pizza, and other unhealthy foods, which parents may not want their children consuming on a daily basis. But those are often the more affordable options to make, and what the kids will eat. Big businesses like Tyson, which supplies the chicken for Oklahoma City schools, have a stake in school menus. There are also cultural clashes that make encouraging healthier options more difficult.

Oklahoma City faces the same problems that America in general faces when combatting this issue: a powerful and well-organized lobby that fights against taxing sugar and fat as well as an addiction not just to their products but to the profits and tax revenue that they generate. Oklahoma City relies on fast food companies like Sonic to provide jobs that produce sales tax revenue because their budget is entirely made from sales taxes. Cities that are funded this way want fast food restaurants to move there, which means not having additional vice taxes on their products. Then they also have the added incentive to encourage people to eat there; creating a tug of war between the desire to keep citizens healthy and keep city coffers full.

Conclusion

Placing a prohibition on the consumption of sugar and fat may not be the answer to the obesity epidemic. In New York City, the court rejected a ban on how many ounces of soda a business can sell in a serving and Americans find restrictions on freedom when it comes to food to be unpalatable. But there are other means that governments can use to incentivize people to make different decisions when it comes to their food and health-related habits.

Given the political headwinds that cities face when taking on food companies it may be more effective to address the issue of exercise more directly rather than taxing unhealthy foods. These taxes are unpopular and can punish the very populations that these policies seek to help, even if they do have some success. By contrast, making it easier for people to have access to fitness classes and exercise in their communities can help save money in the long run. Doing so may also feel less invasive to people worried about the extent to which government is trying to govern our choices.

Resources

Slate: You Should Get A Tax Deduction For A Gym Membership

Quartz: Mexico City Is Offering Free Subway Rides In Exchange For Doing Squats

PBS: Did You Know? The Story of Theodore Roosevelt

White House: Let’s Move

Washington Post: DC Will Eliminate Fees At City’s Fitness Centers In 2016

WAMC: City Offers Employees Cash Incentives To Keep Fit

Washington Post: More Than 20 percent Of Residents Bike To Work in These Three D.C. Neighborhoods

GoodReads: Salt Sugar Fat

Politico: How America’s Top Junk-Food City Went On A Diet (And Fattened Its Economy)

NY Post: Highest Court In NY Refuses To Reinstate Big Soda Ban

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Should the Government Be Involved in Promoting Healthy Lifestyles? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a bad few months for everyone’s favorite fast casual burrito chain–Chipotle. There’s been a lot of bad press about the company after numerous instances of food-borne illnesses across the country broke out, and Chipotle’s sales have taken a sharp dive. And most recently, it was announced that there will be a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigation, into the handling of a Norovirus outbreak in Southern California.

Chipotle’s food safety issues in 2015 included multiple instances of E.coli as well as Norovirus and salmonella. For example, during the second week of December, almost 150 Boston College students came down with Norovirus after eating at the chain. A large E.coli scare in October forced restaurant closures in Washington and Oregon. There were additional cases of E.coli tied to Chipotle in pretty much every corner of the United States, including California, Ohio, New York, and Minnesota. Earlier last year, in August, Chipotle customers in Minneapolis/St. Paul area fell sick with salmonella after eating at the chain.

The most disturbing part of these outbreaks, however, is that Chipotle doesn’t appear to be able to trace what is going on. Credit Suisse analysts told CNBC that Chipotle’s issues look different from other chains’ food scares in years past–including issues at Jack in the Box, Taco Bell, McDonalds– because the cause of the outbreaks have yet to be determined. The analysts said:

In all of the five historical cases just mentioned, the cause of the food safety issue was determined relatively quickly. As such, if CMG were able to identify the source of the E coli outbreak, that could help sales recover more quickly than we have modeled.

The health scares have also led to bad financial health for the Mexican chain–sales in the fourth quarter plummeted 14.6 percent, and sales at stores that have been open for at least a year fell 30 percent in December alone. Over the last year, the company’s stock has fallen by almost a third.

The criminal investigation is going to be focused specifically on a Norovirus outbreak in Simi Valley, California, and Chipotle has said that it will comply with the investigation. But it’s going to be a long road and a lot of work for the restaurant chain if it ever hopes to regain the trust it formerly had among its customers.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Grand Jury Probing Chipotle’s Handling of Norovirus Outbreak in California appeared first on Law Street.

Fast food restaurants are many people’s go-to place for a quick and inexpensive meal. Despite widespread concerns about the healthiness of the food they serve, these franchises still receive an enormous amount of customers daily. But recent news has just exposed a few fast food restaurants and have shown us that some may be giving out more than just food–particularly a couple recent cases of drugs being produced or found in different establishments.

Early Tuesday morning around 4:42 AM, Cedar Rapid’s police received a call about suspicious activity going on outside a Taco Bell. When the officers arrived they found two men standing outside, one of whom was a Taco Bell employee. Police then called the restaurant’s manager to the scene and went inside with him to check it out. To their surprise, they found materials identified as equipment for the production of methamphetamine in the utility area.

@tacobell do you have meth infused queso? Asking for a friend….. https://t.co/lO0gVEiI6o

— Patrick O’Leary (@ughsoawkward) August 5, 2015

The parking lot was taped off Tuesday morning while officers examined the materials, and it is still unclear if meth was actually cooked inside the restaurant. The two men were identified as 31-year-old Christopher Adam Matous and 56-year-old Kent Jerome Duby. Matous faces charges of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of sodium hydroxide and petroleum distillates. Two of the charges are felonies. Duby faces a felony charge of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. Taco Bell stated,

We understand that two people, one an employee, entered our franchisee’s restaurant illegally, allegedly possessing suspicious items. Both we and our franchisee find this completely unacceptable. Our franchisee has been cooperating with Cedar Rapids Police to investigate this isolated incident. Although the suspicious items found in the restaurant were not used in the kitchen, the employee has been terminated and our franchisee is considering pressing criminal charges. The restaurant will reopen after it has been sanitized and inspected by the Health Department.

The Taco Bell will have to remove any traces of hazardous chemicals from the building and then the health department must perform an inspection before the restaurant is allowed to re-open. Police don’t think that customers or employees at this Taco Bell were ever in danger, but are still investigating the situation. This is not the first time in recent history that a fast food restaurant has had an incident involving drugs. Just last week on July 29, a lawsuit was filed against an In-N-Out Burger in Los Angeles, California when a customer, Fred Maldonado, became sick after drinking a milkshake that allegedly contained two methamphetamine capsules. Maldonado visited In-N-Out during March of 2014 and ordered a burger and milkshake. It wasn’t until the next morning that he noticed two capsules wrapped in a napkin at the bottom of his cup. He then returned to the restaurant and complained to the manager who only apologized and offered him a free burger.

A California Man Is Suing In-n-Out Burger After Allegedly Finding Meth In Drink -NBC pic.twitter.com/lG0FuaNFDD

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) August 2, 2015

The suit Maldonado filed states, “Plaintiff did not initially know what the two capsules were, but later testing revealed that they were methamphetamine and that it appeared that they may have been illicitly manufactured.” Maldonado also claims that he suffered severe nausea and mental distress after drinking the milkshake. Maldonado filed the lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging negligence and strict liability. In-N-Out has denied the charges and stated:

At In-N-Out Burger, we have always served the freshest, highest quality burgers, fries, and drinks and customer safety is one of our highest priorities.

In-N-Out Burger executive vice president Arnie Wensinger told City News Service.

We will vigorously defend these baseless claims. Due to the fact that this matter involves ongoing litigation, we will unfortunately not be able to comment any further.

To have drugs around or being manufactured where people eat is completely unacceptable–both the Taco Bell and In-N-Out Burger cases are very concerning. Careless actions like this can can put customers like Maldonado in serious danger. Even though they appear to  be isolated incidents, restaurants need to pay close attention to their employees and what’s happening inside their buildings.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drugs on the Side? Fast Food Restaurants Under Fire for Possible Drug Violations appeared first on Law Street.

Iconic restaurant chain Whataburger just announced it will not allow the open carrying of guns on its properties. The company has locations in 10 states, including Texas, which recently passed legislation stating that licensed Texans can openly tote their handguns in a hip or shoulder holster.

Whataburger President and CEO Preston Atkinson wrote an open letter than can be viewed on the company’s website. Atkinson writes that the company must think about how the open carry policy affects its employees and customers. He stated:

From a business standpoint…we have to think about how open carry impacts our 34,000+ employees and millions of customers.

The open-carry law will be put into effect starting January 1, 2016, but Texas Restaurant Association CEO Richie Jackson said he was not surprised by Whataburger’s early announcement. Under the new law, “gun rights do not trump property rights.”

Other Texas area restaurants are expected to follow Whataburger’s lead.

Residents of the Lone Star state will likely react both positively and negatively to Whataburger’s announcement. Naysayers like Open Carry Texas founder C.J. Grisham will probably boycott the restaurant (let’s hope he can resist the siren call of the famous Patty Melt) while supporters like the members of Moms Demand Action will undoubtedly express their gratitude and continue to visit Whataburger locations.

But what if Whataburger had remained silent on this issue—or, heaven forbid, openly praised the open-carry bill?

For starters, it probably would have lost a lot of business from customers who brought their families or sports teams onto Whataburger properties. (Nothing says “good sportsmanship” like grabbing a seat next to a man with a gun-holster after the big game).

Secondly, this would have meant a huge change in the training of employees. How would you feel if you had to constantly survey customers and be on the lookout regarding who was visibly armed?

Before Whataburger released its open letter, moms like “Moms Demand Action” spokeswoman Stephanie Lundy reflected on what would happen to their teenaged sons and daughters who worked the late shift at fast-food restaurants. Since when does the job description of a minimum-wage occupation include assessing if someone was going to use a firearm to rob their place of business?

To quote Mary Jones, a woman who was featured in the Associated Press coverage of the Whataburger situation: we are not in the Wild, Wild West. Leave your firearms at home if you want to eat some French fries.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iconic Restaurant Chain Will Not Follow Texas Open Carry Law appeared first on Law Street.

It started a few years ago: the calories and sodium that you are consuming when you sit down to eat a Big Mac or a Whopper stare at you from the side of the package. This phenomena occurred because of something called obesity lawsuits–legal claims by people who consume fast food at least a few times a week that they didn’t realize what they were putting into their bodies. Read on to learn about obesity lawsuits, their popularity, and the legal arguments behind them.

What Are Obesity Lawsuits?

The national conversation about what we eat and what is in it isn’t new, but it has exploded recently, from First Lady Michelle Obama’s initiatives to the school systems and even popular media. The food and drink community has been changing the way they make, market, and package foods, and it has all been either a direct result or a symptom of obesity lawsuits.

Most of the lawsuits that fit into this category come from people who blamed fast food restaurants for causing them to gain weight. They said that they weren’t aware of just how many calories they were consuming and that the companies used false advertising to say that they were healthier than they actually are. These lawsuits, as an overarching theme, also “claim that companies failed to warn consumers of the harmful contents of their food; that food advertising is misleading or deceptive; that food is addictive…or that defendants’ food contributed to consumers’ obesity.”

Obesity lawsuits have been around for decades. At least 26 states have banned any type of lawsuit against a fast food company, both restaurants and manufacturers. The Washington Post goes into more detail about these laws, stating they are:

‘Commonsense consumption’ laws, which prohibit people from suing food purveyors for making them fat, giving them diabetes, or adding to their high blood pressure.

LegalZoom points out that even though there isn’t a federal ban on the cases, there is a distinct bias from the system, which is why the ban proceeded with so much support.

Those who were for the ban on obesity lawsuits spoke out on Fox News:

‘The bill seeks to block lawsuits by people because they ate too much and got fat,’ says Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, one of the bill’s sponsors.

‘We should not encourage lawsuits that blame others for our own choices and could bankrupt an entire industry,’ notes Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

In a conversation with The New York Times, the Steven C. Anderson, president of the National Restaurant Association, which represents the 858,000 small and large restaurant businesses around the country, said:

Within the industry, it has gotten everyone’s attention. While we are concerned, we think them to be frivolous.

But are these lawsuits frivolous, or are they surrounded by the stigma against the obese?

Obesity Lawsuits in Court

Negligence

Many of the plaintiffs that go up against fast food restaurants say that the food they receive is not as healthy as the restaurant would have them believe and that the quality of the food is not what was advertised in commercials. One of the most prolific cases against a fast food restaurant, Ashley Pelman et. al. v. McDonald’s Corporation, alleged that McDonald’s food items were dangerous for consumption and that McDonald’s was negligent in warning its customers. When proving this negligence, the plaintiff must prove:

1. The danger was not apparent to the average consumer;
2. The product is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use;
3. The plaintiff’s obesity was caused by the food in question; and
4. The harm would not have occurred had an adequate warning been given.

The judge who presided over this case said that:

If consumers know (or reasonably should know) the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonald’s, they cannot blame McDonald’s if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized McDonald’s products.

He dismissed the case.

Proving negligence can be hard, especially in situations of other unhealthy choices on the part of the consumer. This particular case did not do that, but it is held in high regard as one of the foremost cases for how to successfully sue a fast food company for negligence–those who do try to sue make sure that they can prove those four points before continuing onward.

Accountability

But what accountability does the fast food restaurant have? Those who have filed lawsuits against fast food restaurants have often said that the food is “unsafe for consumption,” due to its nutritional content, which is a harder sell in the court systems as there is no legal limit. For example, this is the same argument used against firearm manufacturers as well, but in those cases the arguments have not succeeded.

Plaintiffs also try to prove the manufacturer’s intent to sell the food using advertisements, public statements, and even internal documents. Once again returning to Pelman, they claimed that the promotional materials that said things like “Big N’ Tasty Everyday” encouraged regular consumption. They also quoted one of the nutritionists that McDonald’s featured on its website:

Our wide range of choices on our menu makes it possible for people to eat there three times a day if they wanted to.

Changing Habits and Addiction

The plaintiffs must be able to convince the courts that, if they had been given the appropriate and correct warnings about the food they were consuming, they would have changed their dining habits to something healthier. In other words: if the plaintiff had known that they were consuming something that was bad for them, would they continue to eat there?

There is really no foolproof way to determine that, but the courts must ask questions to make assumptions. Questions might include their current eating habits and if they lost any weight since they ceased visiting the fast food restaurant.

Overall, these cases are very hard to prove because of the amount of guesswork that needs to go in on all sides. A McDonald’s spokesman even said:

I don’t think that any of these lawsuits will prevail unless and until there is proof that fast food companies are intentionally and maliciously putting stuff into their food in an effort to make people ill or to addict them to the product. There is no proof of that–no hint of any proof of that–and I think that missing element makes these sorts of claims very difficult for courts to take seriously.

Results of Obesity Lawsuits

We first saw nutritional labels going onto our fast food containers around 2003 when the government believed that it would help Americans make healthier choices about their meals. This movement was all part of the Menu Education and Labeling Act that was proposed to make those choices easier. While the bill seemed to stall, McDonald’s was actually one of the first companies to start listing calories on its menus, saying it was to help customers make healthy choices.

There have been some modest improvement over the last ten years in some of the offerings available at fast food restaurants. According to Margo G. Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington DC,

Given the role of fast food in Americans’ diets, restaurants are in a unique position to help improve the diet quality in the U.S. by improving the nutritional quality of menu offerings. Modest improvements in average nutritional quality of menu offerings across eight fast-food restaurant chains were observed, which is consistent with both legislative efforts (e.g., banning trans fat) and the industry’s own statements about creating healthier menu options. However, considering that fast food is ubiquitous in the U.S. diet, there is much room for improvement.

Still, there hasn’t been much improvement in the choices that people are making while they are actually in the restaurant. In fact, fewer than half of the patrons at fast food shops actually notice that their food has calories listed, and it also really didn’t have an impact on what they ordered.

Conclusion

Obesity lawsuits and litigation are a problem that we need to solve, and that might just start with better education on all fronts. The stamping of calories and nutritional content on the sides of cups and the backs of hamburger cartons is a start for the companies. Now it is up to consumers to make the right choices for themselves. The argument will likely continue onward, even as more states push toward a complete ban on the obesity lawsuits.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: MEAL Act

Food and Drug Administration: Summary of Changes in the FDA Food Code 2013

Additional

Bloomberg Business: McDonald’s Obesity Case Can’t Proceed as Group Suit

CBS News: McDonald’s Wins Fat Fight

Fox News: House Votes to Ban ‘Obesity Lawsuits’ Against Fast Food Industry

Center for Science in the Public Interest: Availability of Nutrition Information From Chain Restaurants in the United States

The New York Times: Teenagers’ Suit Says McDonald’s Made Them Obese

Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law: Fast-Food Lawsuits and the Cheeseburger Bill: Critiquing Congress’s Response to the Obesity Epidemic

Sun Sentinel: Fending Off the Big Mac Attack

Washington Post: These 26 states Won’t Let You Sue McDonald’s For Making You Fat

ABC News: Obese Man Sues Fast-Food Chains

Bloomberg Law: Where’s the Beef? The Challenges of Obesity Lawsuits

Huffington Post: Calorie Labels at Fast Food Restaurants Don’t Make a Difference

LA Times: Liability, Guns and the Law

Legal Zoom: Can You Sue a Restaurant For Making You Obese?

The New York Times: McDonald’s to Start Posting Calorie Counts

NPR: Nutrition Labels For Fast Foods

Organic Consumers Association: Junk Food/Obesity Lawsuits Alarm U.S. Food Giants

Politico: The Plot to Make Big Food Pay

Time: Can You be Fat and Fit — or Thin and Unhealthy?

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obesity Lawsuits: Who’s to Blame When Fast Food Makes You Fat? appeared first on Law Street.

McDonald’s has never really been known for treating its employees well, per se. That being said, I’m not sure many of us realized quite how bad it is at some of the roughly 15,000 McDonald’s locations nationwide until this week when news broke that workers in 19 different states filed complaints with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

These complaints allege dangerous working conditions, lack of training, and hazardous equipment, among other faults. A particularly common complaint appears to be that workers are often burned by the equipment they have to handle on the job. Workers cited not having gloves when they are required to handle hot equipment, or that they’ve had to clean hot grills that haven’t been turned off.

A particularly disturbing story was told by one Chicago McDonald’s worker, Brittney Berry. She claims that she slipped and burnt her arm on a grill to the extent that the burn caused nerve damage. What’s even more worrisome is that she reports that her managers responded to the incident by telling her to put mustard on her arms, of all things. She stated:

My managers kept pushing me to work faster. The managers told me to put mustard on it, but I ended up having to get rushed to the hospital in an ambulance. This is exactly why workers at McDonald’s need union rights.

While this sounds shocking and horrible, it’s evidently not that unheard of. Polling group Hart Research Associates conducted a survey last year of nearly 1,500 adult fast food workers about their injuries on the job. Almost 80 percent reported suffering from burns, and Berry’s manager apparently wasn’t too unique, because a third of those who suffered burns reported having a member of management tell them to put some sort of condiment–like mustard, mayo, butter, or ketchup–on it to treat the problem. In addition, the survey found that two-thirds of those workers had been cut by something on the job, 33 percent had been hurt while carrying some sort of heavy item, and 23 percent had fallen on a slippery surface. Overall, nearly 90 percent of the fast food workers surveyed had been hurt in some way. While that survey didn’t just focus on McDonald’s workers, but rather on the industry as a whole, it’s hard to imagine that the conditions at McDonald’s are significant outliers from its peer companies.

These complaints fit into a ongoing campaign for workers’ rights being waged against McDonald’s by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other groups. Called the “Fight for $15” campaign, it aims to up the minimum wage for McDonald’s workers as well as provide them with safer working conditions.

McDonald’s has of course responded to the allegations levied against it, bringing up the “Fight for $15” campaign in a rather dismissive way:

McDonald’s and its independent franchisees are committed to providing safe working conditions for employees in the 14,000 McDonald’s Brand U.S. restaurants. We will review these allegations. It is important to note that these complaints are part of a larger strategy orchestrated by activists targeting our brand and designed to generate media coverage.

OSHA has confirmed that the allegations are being looked into, so whether they are actually true will be decided by the government. Either way, it creates a pretty grim picture of the working conditions at these branches, and a rather convincing argument for reform.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do You Want Pain With Your Fries? OSHA Investigating McDonald’s appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who went to public school (and probably a decent chunk of the children who went to private school, as well) remember school lunch time. You file into the cafeteria, grab one of the brightly colored plastic trays, and then take whatever they give you, with maybe a scant handful of options along the way. Of course, some students bring lunch, and others have dietary concerns–in middle school I ordered a peanut butter and jelly sandwich approximately 75 percent of the time–but that was of course before peanut butter was banned from many cafeterias. But for the vast majority of the many, many students who order lunch each day there is very little choice. In addition, in many places there are very specific rules governing students during lunchtime. An overall unhappiness with their school-provided nutrition is why students at Farmington High School in Farmington, Connecticut, started boycotting school lunches.

Students at Farmington High in particular have a problem with Chartwells, the food provider for the school. They allege that the food is disgusting–according to a Washington Post article:

Since Chartwells replaced the district’s in-house meal program in 2012, according to the students, it has meant an increasingly unpalatable menu, with food that sometimes features mold, human hair, dangerously undercooked meats, insects and portion sizes fit for a small, starving child.

In addition, students have butt up against policies by the school involving the ability of students to charge food. So, they boycotted the lunches this week. The boycott has apparently been ended, and dialogue has opened up between the students, the school, and Chartwells. Principle William Silva stated:

We had some of the boycott organizers, so to speak, and other student leaders who we had reached out to make sure we were hearing all student voices. Everyone contributed, it was very positive, very respectful and we talked about some of the things we’re immediately going to do.

This nation has a big problem when it comes to school lunches, especially because so many of them are served to students who do not have any other choice when it comes to their nutrition. In fiscal year 2013 alone, the government provided free or reduced-price meals to nearly 31 million students–totaling about 5 billion lunches. That’s an essential source of nutrition for students whose families don’t necessarily have the resources to pay for healthy nutrition outside of school, and its exactly those kind of students whom the aid programs are designed to help. In addition, while it’s easy to make the argument that students who have the means but do not want to buy lunch can just bring it from home, it’s not really a fair one. Even students who could make lunches at home might not have the time, the ability, or the support, or they have to contend with long bus rides that mean that they don’t have access to proper refrigeration.

The students of Farmington High School were right to boycott the fact that they were not being provided adequate nutrition. And it’s not just that particularly school–Everett High School in D.C. is also undertaking a boycott for pretty much the same reasons. Meghan Hellrood is a senior at the school and is organizing the boycott, complaining that the lunches aren’t filling enough. While these are just a few isolated incidents, I’d love to see students nationally stand up for themselves and make sure that make their voices heard about bad school nutrition.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Lunch Boycotts in Connecticut, D.C. Highlight Bad School Nutrition appeared first on Law Street.

It seems that McDonald’s will change its slogan yet again ever so slightly by making it just a little bit worse. Now, instead of hearing the phrase “I’m lovin’ it” to accompany the iconic Golden Arches, you will hear “Lovin’ Beats Hatin’.” What’s with McDonald’s and bad grammar, anyway? Starting next year, the McDonalds catchphrase will be all about stating the obvious.

Not anymore, I’m not. Courtesy of Gabby Kaminsky via Flickr.

Personally, I am unsure as to what McDonald’s marketing experts wish to accomplish with this change. Are they trying to be progressive? Like, 1970s Beatles-style let’s all love everyone and sit in a hippie drum circle? I mean, don’t most people worldwide kind of know that treating others with love is better than the alternative? It’s something they tell us in preschool in the U.S., anyway.

Well, I guess it’s not such an obvious thing since there is so much war, hate, turmoil, and all that in the world today. Ah, I think I understand now! McDonald’s is trying to create world peace by telling others to LOVE not HATE! Wow, McDonald’s, that is such a noble task you are trying to undertake! The collective imagination behind the new catchphrase will single-handedly bring peace to the Middle East, thus earning its creators the Nobel Peace Prize. Okay, maybe I am exaggerating a bit…

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the objective. Maybe it’s as simple as trying to drum up some competition among the foods offered at McDonald’s to keep things interesting. Dollar-Menu burgers versus six-piece chicken nuggets. Which are you lovin’ and which are you hatin’? Maybe consumers are lovin’ egg McMuffins and hatin’ Japan’s exclusive squid-ink burger. Personally, I am just sick and tired of the fast food giant omitting the “g” at the end of the words. I draw a blank as to the reasoning behind that one…

According to McDonald’s big wigs themselves, the campaign is designed to “spread happiness in the face of Internet hate.” There wasn’t any more elaboration than that, but they have admitted that the company is in for big changes.

Why? Sales are down for the fast food chain due to its failure to keep up with modern eating habits worldwide. Also, the company claims that introducing too many new items too quickly last year caused a decline in revenue. The mentality of consumers seems to be changing, too; whereas consistency was previously looked at positively, today’s consumer prefers customization with their orders. Thus, the true motive behind the new slogan. Though perhaps the campaign change will not boost sales as intended, only time will tell, the company made a smart move by deciding to unveil the new slogan during the next Super Bowl.

So, McDonald’s, I’m “lovin’” that you’re trying to adapt, but I’m “dislikin’” your proposed new slogan. It leaves me “wantin’” some more creativity. Okay, sorry, I’m done bothering everyone with poor grammar.

Amen, sister!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post McDonald’s is Changin’ Things Again appeared first on Law Street.

Hold the pickle, hold the lettuce

Special orders don’t upset us.

All we ask is that you let you let us

Serve it your way.*

Courtesy of memecenter.

(*Unless your way involves hot onion rings. In which case, all bets are off.)

I hate when I order food and don’t get exactly what I want. When my order gets messed up, though, I will complain about it relentlessly to everyone I am with and possibly later that night to people I call for the sole purpose of complaining, but I rarely actually go back and say something to the waitress or server. People get onto me for this, and tell me to ‘just say something; you’re paying to get what you want, not what they serve you; it’s not a big deal to let them know; they don’t care; it won’t upset them, etc.’ Previously, I had no excuses for my cowardly behavior, but previously, I had not heard the story of the cold onion rings. And that story justifies every time I’ve ever not complained about my order. Which makes it a pretty good story.

One day, Robert Deyapp walked into a New Mexico Burger King for what, I assume, he assumed was a normal trip to a fast food chain. He placed his order and excitedly went to eat his lunch. To his horror, he quickly discovered that his onion rings were cold. This was unacceptable! He did what anybody unhappy with their purchase would do (except, of course, for me) and went to the counter to ask for hot onion rings.

At the counter things did get heated, but unfortunately for Deyapp, none of those things were the onion rings. When he complained to manager Francisco Berrera and asked for a refund, instead of a simple “I’m sorry, sir, let us take care of that for you,” Berrera took a different approach. He lunged across the counter and attacked Deyapp with a stungun and switchblade.

As you probably know, BK’s motto used to be “Have it your way.” That has since been changed, most recently to “Be your way,” which is perhaps Berrera’s best defense: he was trying to be a solid example of the Burger King message, and since he seems to be a quick-tempered, violent man, he was “being his way” when he beat up a customer. Surely BK would have to respect that, right?

Despite his solitary pursuit to be a good BK representative, Berrera later pled no contest to aggravated assault, and Deyapp is currently suing the burger franchise. Because it is pending litigation, Burger King has not publicly responded to any questions on this matter; however, I have a couple of theories as to what happened in New Mexico that fated day that would show the burger franchise was not breaking any of its promises.

Courtesy of Giphy.

1. Going back to that same jingle at the top that BK was known for, it is pretty clear that the lyrics say “special orders don’t upset us.” Hot onion rings are a regular order. Burger King never suggests that regular orders don’t upset them. If you place a regular order, then, it is fair to say that by doing so, you are leaving yourself open to an attack.
2. Have you heard about secret menus? They are all the rage. You can order specials that aren’t on the menu by finding out about them online. At McDonalds, you could order a McGangbang: a double cheeseburger and a spicy chicken sandwich, which you would then combine with the chicken in between the two patties, a.k.a., the McGangbang. Perhaps at Burger King a secret menu item just happens to be called the “My onion rings are cold,” and is code for “please attak me with a stun gun and switchblade.” In which case, Deyapp was literally asking for it. That’s the problem with those secret menus, though, you always risk the chance that somebody might order something on accident and then you’ll get sued because they were attacked without consent. Trends today!

Whatever the reason for the attack, I am using it as proof to my loved ones that you should never complain about your food. Unless, of course, Deyapp wins a whole lot. In which case, I will complain so much at so many restaurants that people will be dying to hit me. I can take a punch for a big cash payout.

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [Phillip Wong via Flckr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spar Broiled: Cold Burger King Onion Rings Lead to Attack and Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.