Instructions- 1 page length
In 2002, a suit was filed on behalf of two Bronx, New York, teenagers who alleged that McDonald’s had made them “fat and sick.” One plaintiff was a 19-year-old woman who was 5 feet, 6 inches tall and weighed 270 pounds, and the other plaintiff was 14 years old and 4 feet, 10 inches tall and weighed 170 pounds. The case was thrown out by the judge on the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that McDonald’s food was more dangerous to health than was entirely obvious and that McDonald’s food was responsible for their condition. In reaction to this case and other cases, twenty-six states enacted “commonsense consumption” laws prohibiting consumers from suing food sellers for making them fat, giving them diabetes, or creating high blood pressure. Proponents of these “cheeseburger” laws argued that individuals’ physical challenges result from a combination of genetics and poor choices in nutrition and in personal lifestyle. Prohibiting individuals from suing and blaming fast-food companies for their physical challenges has the beneficial effect of encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their own health and to lose weight. On the other hand, individuals who advocated imposing responsibility on fast-food companies argued that the companies conceal the high salt and fat content of their food; the companies spend billions of dollars on advertising, particularly targeting children; and the food that fast-food outlets sell is psychologically and physically addictive.
Should individuals be prohibited from suing fast-food companies for the health risks created by fast food?
