The College Hill Independent

Back

Don't Get Fat, Get Even
Sue McDonalds—then overthrow the government
. . . by Sarah Green
[Illustration by Richard Whiting]

We live in a culture that makes people fat and then sneers at them for being so. On February 20th, lawyer Samuel Hirsch tried again to do something about it. Hirsch, who is representing several overweight children, filed a revised lawsuit against McDonald’s.

The case had previously been thrown out of court, after the presiding judge, Robert Sweet, declared that Hirsch had failed to show that McDonald’s food posed health risks beyond what an average consumer should be expected to know.

This time, Hirsch will try a different tactic, attacking McDonald’s for including bizarre and mysterious chemicals such as TBHQ, a stabilizer (what the hell is a stabilizer?) and Dimethylpolysiloxane, an anti-foaming agent (what in the name of sweet Jesus is trying to foam in my Chicken McNugget?!).

But although it may be tempting to view the McDonald’s lawsuit as little more than frivolous fodder inviting parody on late-night TV, huge amounts of money and serious issues are at stake. Just last year, McDonald’s settled a $10 million suit brought by Hindus and vegetarians, because—despite its stated switch to vegetable oil—the fast-food company continued to use beef in its french fries.

Now, with the company reporting its first-ever quarterly loss and scaling back plans to open more branches, Hirsch and the kids he represents are refusing to retreat.

McSarcasm with cheese and an order of elitism
The story of the Bronx teenagers behind the suit elicited dismissive and scornful reactions from readers in the New York Post: says one letter-writer, “A 400-pound child walks into McDonald’s, gulfs down three cheeseburgers and then wants to sue because she is fat. Who in this day and age doesn’t know that fast food is unhealthy and loaded with calories and unwanted carbohydrates?”

Another writer adds, “Having no common sense does not mean you can sue. Why don’t these kids just hop on a treadmill?” A third letter-writer has this to share: “I am a fat slob who is much too lazy to get off my butt and exercise, totally devoted to indulging my every whim and unwilling to apply any self-control whatsoever. Where can I find an idiot lawyer to get me enough money to keep me in Big Macs and french fries for the rest of my life, without me having to lift a finger to support myself?”

The caustic sarcasm in these letters shows just how intolerant Americans are of fat—despite our status as the fattest nation in the world—and how much we take our own luxuries for granted. Yes, a treadmill is a luxury. Education is a luxury. And having choices about what you eat is also a luxury. Asserting that the overweight are somehow morally bankrupt is as ridiculous as assuming that the working poor would continue to eat unhealthy food if healthier, affordable choices were available.

The New York Times received letters which expressed similar sentiments, though they were voiced in less blunt language. One letter-writer quoted Hamlet to give the following advice to overweight Americans: “The real epidemics are the lack of athleticism and the culture of couch-potato slothfulness. The message to Americans who have a weight problem they believe is due to fast-food consumption should not be ‘Get thee to a courtroom’ but rather ‘Get thee to a gym.’”

In a response to this letter, a different respondent countered, “But gyms can cost more than a budget allows and have restricted hours. I would suggest, ‘Get thee to the streets.’ Walk, or run. And if one takes along a plastic bag, one can help the environment not only by admiring it, but also by picking up garbage.”

While the Times readers lack the condescending sarcasm of the Post respondents, they make up for it by adding a super-sized portion of elitism, surpassed only by a letter I saw in the Financial Times, which invoked Dante’s Inferno “in which the gluttonous occupy the third circle of hell and the slothful the fifth.”

Scam, bam, thank you ma’am
Big Food claims nearly as many lives as Big Tobacco; cigarettes retain the dubious distinction of being the first cause of preventable death in America, but obesity is quickly catching up. In the year 2000, obesity-related illnesses, such as hypertension and heart disease, cost Americans an estimated $117 billion and killed 300,000 people, according to the Surgeon General. In children, obesity has already dramatically increased asthma and Type 2 diabetes.

Yet the prevalent attitude, as reflected in the letters above, continues to treat the issue of obesity as one of “gluttons with ballooning waists and distending derrieres,” who are “lazy” or “not responsible.” Overweight children, they say, have “unfit mothers” or “negligent parents.” The letter-writers go on to accuse the overweight of lacking self-control and even basic intelligence.

But this is not an issue of gluttony, sloth, or any of the other deadly sins—it’s an issue of class. The Surgeon General’s report found that “members of lower-income families generally experience a greater prevalence [of obesity] than those from higher-income families.” The derisive attitude towards fat people is little more than a smokescreen for classism.

One of the plaintiffs in the trial is a boy who ate McDonald’s food every day while he was living in a homeless shelter. Foods high in fat make you feel full, and carbohydrates and sugars give you a quick energy burst. McDonald’s is a cheap, fast, and readily accessible way for those with low incomes to feed themselves. It’s no coincidence that the world’s first fast-food restaurants—England’s fish-and-chip shops—arose at the same time as the industrial revolution.

Many of the country’s working poor live in motels because they don’t have enough savings to afford a down payment for an apartment. There are no kitchens in motels; where are they supposed to cook healthy food? When are those below the poverty line—which includes those earning minimum wage—supposed to find the extra cash to join a gym and the extra time and energy to go for a jog? As for the letter-writer who suggested they take a trash bag and help pick up litter—they may be doing that already, and getting paid $5.15 for the labor.

The smoking McNugget
The legal precedent for this type of lawsuit is the huge settlement paid by the tobacco industry, and the parallels between Big Food and Big Tobacco are worth examining. Although Chicken McNuggets aren’t addictive, they contain a number of bizarre chemical additives comparable to cigarettes—Judge Sweet called them “a McFrankenstein creation” and pointed out that any consumer assuming chicken is a leaner option than beef (as it usually is) would, in this case, be wrong; Chicken McNuggets are twice as fatty as a McDonald’s hamburger.

And while junk food may not be outright addictive, eating a diet of sweets, salts, fats, and starches as a child means that one will crave those tastes as an adult. Taste isn’t born, it’s acquired: Americans have developed an increasing predilection for fat and sugar. Children who are raised eating junk food end up overweight and then feed their children more junk, perpetuating a vicious cycle of obesity.

Just as cigarette companies advertise their products as a necessity for an indulgent, carefree, ruggedly individualistic life, McDonald’s advertises its food as family-friendly. Both industries also advertise to children; where once there was Joe Camel, there is now Ronald McDonald.
A person who makes it to age 18 without smoking is much less likely to start, and if a person doesn’t eat McDonald’s food as a child, it won’t taste good to them as an adult. McDonald’s knows that a whiny kid is often an effective means of getting parents to spend money—hence, the Happy Meal. That said, McDonald’s itself is only a part of the problem.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of healthfulness
The greater problem is politics. Even as congressmen funded by Big Food prepare legislation to protect their meal ticket, so to speak, from litigation, schools without enough money to provide healthy lunches for students have resorted to signing deals with fast food companies to sell hamburgers on school grounds.

The progressives who would like to solve the obesity epidemic by increasing required physical activity in public schools and implementing nutrition education might want to take a step back and first demand that schools to be able to afford healthy food.
The anger that some are now directing solely at McDonald’s, and the disgust which others reserve for the angry ones, needs to be turned full force against the source of the problem.

It is the United States government that doesn’t give welfare mothers enough to even cover rent, let alone food, let alone healthy food. It is the United States government that imposes such limits on Medicare that low-income women cannot control the size of their families in the first place. It is the United States government that does not give schools enough money to raise healthy and informed Americans.
Our government—the legislative branch—refuses to give low-income families and the working poor a fair chance to have healthy, upwardly mobile lives, and then the same government—the judicial branch—has thus far refused to recognize the crisis.

McDonald’s alone is not to blame for the obesity epidemic sweeping our country. And suing McDonald’s doesn’t hold the government accountable: this lawsuit won’t raise the minimum wage, it won’t expand healthcare, and it won’t improve education. On the other hand, the lawsuit against McDonald’s isn’t just asking for reparations for a few overweight individuals—it is also asking for money to educate consumers.

So I say, “go ahead, sue McDonald’s.” But don’t forget that the government has also been culpable in allowing big business to translate into big backsides.

Sarah Green B’04 is eagerly awaiting the McTofu.

Back to Indy Home