PDA

View Full Version : Documentary "Food inc"


dropshot winner
12-05-2009, 03:53 AM
Description: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0


Have you seen it?
If not, you REALLY should, especially if you live in america where the problem is at its worst.

Basically all the food is controlled by a handful of corperations. Cows went from walking and eating grass to standing all their live knee deep in their own **** and eating corn along thousands of others. And that's just one of the sick and distugsting aspects of the whole twisted food system that is talked about in the movie.
It's shocking, to say the least.

Steady Eddy
12-05-2009, 09:35 AM
Yeah, but you know...the meat industry has been around a long time, why would it all of a sudden become less sanitary? Back when Teddy Roosevelt was president alot of 'reforms' occurred because of a novel, The Jungle, which had some descriptions of the stockyards. So complaining about poisoned meat isn't anything new.

If such a high percentage of the meat that sold is poisoned, why aren't more people getting sick? McDonalds was famously sued for having coffee that was 'too hot', then if million of the billions of burgers they've sold were poisoned I'd expect a slew of lawsuits. A simpler explanation for the things presented in these alarming documentaries is that the producers will get a bigger response by scaring everyone than by being balanced.

I'm about as worried that the next burger I eat will kill me as I am worried about Florida going underwater. Relax, enjoy life. Real dangers come from terrorists and criminals, (people the left tell us are harmless), and not so much from corporations like Safeway, and McDonalds, (entities the left insists are the bane of all existence).

meowmix
12-05-2009, 09:55 AM
But you should be deathly afraid of Florida going underwater!!! Global warming and all :)

WBF
12-05-2009, 10:00 AM
Steady Eddy, I suggest that you inform yourself before posting on a topic you clearly aren't familiar with. You even go so far as to quote 'too hot', indicating some ignorance on another topic as well. Oh. And terrorists/criminals are real dangers? How about cars, heart disease, and cancer? Those threats actually kill large numbers of people in the US.



That being said, there are other causes of equal or more importance in this world that aren't receiving this level of attention. Most of them boil down to the same root cause... Corporations. And... Humans.

Both need a hell of a lot of work.

Topaz
12-05-2009, 10:18 AM
.................

Steady Eddy
12-05-2009, 10:44 AM
Steady Eddy, I suggest that you inform yourself before posting on a topic you clearly aren't familiar with. You even go so far as to quote 'too hot', indicating some ignorance on another topic as well.
A woman burned herself when she spilled coffee away from the McDonald's restaurant. The complaint wasn't over an employee spilling it on her. The complaint was that the coffee was 'too hot' in the first place. I put the phrase 'too hot' in quotes because I'm don't want to imply that I believe the coffee was too hot. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

borg number one
12-05-2009, 11:33 AM
The case you both are referring to involved McDonalds making the coffee so hot that when spilled on skin, it would cause 3d degree burns.

McDonalds was found 80% negligent and the Plaintiff was found 20% negligent in the case, by a Jury. The Jury's award was ultimately appealed and after years the parties ultimately settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

Due to the lawsuit, McDonalds did what it should have done much before the Suit, namely reduce the temperature at which it served its coffee. Real simple.

"Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds.[12] Two years of medical treatment followed."



That case is the poster child for "lawyer haters", but if you look at the real case you'll see that McDonalds was making its coffee at temperatures that were near boiling (180–190 F ). As a result of the case, McDonalds promptly rectified its negligence, which usually occurs when a corporation is held to be at fault in a Court of Law.

see some facts associated with the case:

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

"documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[4] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 F (54 C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[16]"


Simply put, without such lawsuits, corporations continue to commit negligence and people get hurt badly, with the corporation having absolutely NO INCENTIVE to change, other than "the goodness of their hearts".

borg number one
12-05-2009, 11:36 AM
See weblink to Oct. 2009 article on Hamburgers and Contamination below, with a focus on the lady that has been left paralyzed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html

Excerpt:

"tens of thousands of people are still sickened annually by this pathogen, federal health officials estimate, with hamburger being the biggest culprit. Ground beef has been blamed for 16 outbreaks in the last three years alone, including the one that left Ms. Smith paralyzed from the waist down. This summer, contamination led to the recall of beef from nearly 3,000 grocers in 41 states."

Steady Eddy
12-05-2009, 12:16 PM
Due to the lawsuit, McDonalds did what it should have done much before the Suit, namely reduce the temperature at which it served its coffee. Real simple.
I put the part in bold that I disagree with. There are trade-offs, them reducing the temperature makes this unfortunate accident less likely to happen, but the loss is that other people enjoy their coffee less because it isn't as hot as they'd like it. Especially, because many people get their coffee to go and don't consume it until some time after it was purchased. Now you might wonder how these awful burns can be compared to someone enjoying hot coffee. Consider this, if the ratio of people getting burned to people safely enjoying hot coffee was 1:5 or even 1:500 I might agree with you. But since McDonald's had sold billions of burger, I might estimate that they'd sold billions of hot coffees until this happened. Based on my utilitarian understanding of ethics, (that means the greatest good for the greatest number, the rare person who gets hurt has to accept that on behalf of all the others who want their coffee hot by the time they drink it). It might seem that the small pleasure of enjoying hot coffee is incommensurate with the suffering of the burns. But this is not so, if the bad event is rare enough, it can be canceled out by many small good events.

Were this not so, think of all the activities we'd have to ban. From waterskiing to tennis. Is it 100% safe? No? Well ban it then!

"Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds.[12] Two years of medical treatment followed."
While this gets many people emotional, they should remember, this isn't a foreseeable outcome of serving someone coffee. In short, it's bad luck. What if you give a child permission to go to the park, and he gets kidnapped and the kidnappers gouge out his eyes?, etc, etc. Should we get angrier and angier at you for allowing him to go? I think that's irrational, not every misfortune is "somebody's fault". Remember, all they did was serve her coffee, ("those *******s!")

That case is the poster child for "lawyer haters", but if you look at the real case you'll see that McDonalds was making its coffee at temperatures that were near boiling (180190 F ). As a result of the case, McDonalds promptly rectified its negligence, which usually occurs when a corporation is held to be at fault in a Court of Law.

Again, I disagree. McDonald's reduced the temperature because of the outcome of a lawsuit. I think one should assume that coffee is served near boiling. If that is too dangerous for you, then stay away from coffee. I prepare my own coffee shortly after it boils and I assume the risk as a responsible adult.
see some facts associated with the case:
Maybe you're confusing facts with your own values? What other basis can morality have than utilitarian? What risks must one assume if there is to be a somewhat free society? A hasty examination makes yours look good. But a deeper examination reveals problems. Give this some careful thought, I think you'll see that you have to change your mind.

Simply put, without such lawsuits, corporations continue to commit negligence and people get hurt badly, with the corporation having absolutely NO INCENTIVE to change, other than "the goodness of their hearts".

No, their incentive would be money, and that's not a bad thing. They give the public what the public wants in order to make money. A few burns are a price worth paying for the pleasure of hot coffee. I fear that in your world, no enjoyment could ever be had, because all activities have some measure of risk.

See weblink to Oct. 2009 article on Hamburgers and Contamination below, with a focus on the lady that has been left paralyzed.

Excerpt:

"tens of thousands of people are still sickened annually by this pathogen, federal health officials estimate, with hamburger being the biggest culprit. Ground beef has been blamed for 16 outbreaks in the last three years alone, including the one that left Ms. Smith paralyzed from the waist down. This summer, contamination led to the recall of beef from nearly 3,000 grocers in 41 states."
Let's do the math, shall we? I know most people's minds boggle at such large numbers, "tens of thousands", oh dear, that sounds like alot, doesn't it? But if a*10^10 have been served, and problems are in b*10^4, since 10 - 4 = 6 and 10^6 is a million, that means that problems only occur in about one in a million burgers! I know, you'll say, "that's still too much". But, compared to what? If they prepared their food at home, under any conditions, they would probably not be as safe as 999,999 out of a million. So, in the same way that flying is safer than driving, they're safer at the restaurant than at home eating. And problems in only one in a million burgers is a good record and there's no reason to be punitive to any organization doing that well. I don't want to put down being emotional. Being emotional means being compassionate and that's a good thing. But be a thinker at the same time. Resist the urge to make snap decisions over important matters. (Sorry for the lecturing tone, but I'm sure I'm in the minority here).

meowmix
12-05-2009, 12:31 PM
^I agree with you. A lot of statistics sound great, but are actually abysmal. Thousands of people getting hurt sounds important, but when you consider how many people eat McD's on a regular basis... well, statistics usually aren't in context of the larger problems.

borg number one
12-05-2009, 12:44 PM
McDonalds hasn't been the biggest problem in the way of hamburgers folks. They probably have much better "quality control" if you can call it that when it comes to hamburgers relative to grocery bought hamburger. See what the article mentions about "store bought" hamburgers.

Also, you are overlooking all the recalls that have prevented many more instances. See the info on the massive recalls. So, it's not really about McDonalds when it comes to hamburgers.

As to the McDonalds situation, here are some key facts that invalidate any argument for "utilitatrianism" (e.g. Ayn Rand).

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

" McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years."

35ft6
12-05-2009, 01:07 PM
Watching this documentary now. Pretty disgusting stuff. The food industry is incredibly powerful. And they are arguable poisoning the population. I don't think that's their plan nor do I think they're evil, it's just what happened when fewer and fewer companies started making more and more food for everybody and tried to do it as cheaply as possible.

Steady Eddy
12-05-2009, 01:28 PM
" McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
This fallacy is known as ad populum. It amounts to saying that what most do isn't always right. My teachers used to say, "If all the others jumped off a cliff would you?" Whether or not serving coffee at 185 degrees F is negligent or not, needs to be established independently of what the other restaurants are doing.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

Coffee causes injuries. So do hammers, saws, knives and ladders. But if the user is the one at fault, then they get the responsibility. This woman spilled the coffee on herself off the premises of the store. That's her fault. Of course they wouldn't consult a burn expert, it's not relevant.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McDonald's is not responsible for her excessively frail condition. I've spilled hotter coffee on myself with no problems, (I have said "ouch"). It's more sensible that this woman, or her caretaker, not mess with coffee given her unusual frailties, than McDonald's (or anyone else) alter what they do on the speculation that maybe, just maybe this or that could happen. Let's not use hindsight.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
Of course, she spilled the coffee on herself, coffee that given her unbelievably frail condition, she shouldn't even have gotten in the first place. People always want to blame someone else.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

Anything is dangerous in some way, (why are butter knives still allowed?). I've heard that thousands complained about the coffee being too hot. How many complained that it wasn't hot enough? I doubt if that was no one. For a mom and pop business that would be alot, but given their size I don't think this # of complaints would stick out very much.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

I think you give it away in that last sentence. "Give her the money, so what if it's not really McDonald's fault, that not much to them and this woman has need of it." The problem I have with it, isn't that I feel sorry for McDonald's, but the precedent it sets in depriving me of hot coffee. And I like it hot, not lukewarm. And the other policies that get set following this, my freedom will be limited because people fear the lawsuits that come from the few who hurt themselves, then don't take responsibility, a dumb jury gives them an award, and it hurts the rest of us. I've run into this since I was a kid and "cracker balls" got banned because some dumb kids ate them. Then some cool playground equipment was taken away because some loser got hurt. These losers get hurt, and something I want to do gets banned. Someday, in the name of safety, it will be impossible to have any fun, anywhere.
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
I know that and so what? $480,000 is still $480,000 too much. And the ruling still has the chill effects I discussed above. (It did, because shortly after this, when I'd get a coffee refill at Wendy's they'd put a lid on it. I'd tell them, "Don't bother". But they'd say that they have to, so these decisions really do impact things all over.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years."
My goodness, then why don't we ban people from preparing it at home? I've heard some government workers say that they want to get the right to inspect our homes for safety. It's for our own good, mind you. (I'm from the government, and I'm here to help). I don't want this help. If I mess up, I'll blame myself. I promise.

To sum up. I see how some people feel about this. They think that some lady got some mild discomfort from from spilling coffee, and that once you show how bad her burns were, we'll all go, "Oh my! I...I...had no idea." Freak outcomes happen. I think most of the people who thought this verdict was ridiculous understood the principles I've outlined, and their minds won't be changed by hearing about her burns. My problem isn't with "poor McDonald's", it's the way the rules get changed for ALL of us just to look out for these people.

dropshot winner
12-05-2009, 01:32 PM
Who cares about how hot a coffee is sold anyway? That's besides the point.


A lot of new, potentially very dangerous, diseases are created by the modern factory farming. You should all care about that, even if you don't give a **** about the animals.

Farmers in Mexico get out of business because heavily subsized (by U.S. tax payers) corn overfloods the international markets, making their job obsolete. Then they work as illegal aliens in huge slaughterhouses in america cutting meat 8.5 hours a day for a meager loan, getting infections from all the antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Many of those workers lose their fingernails because of those infections.

The result of the subsidized corn is that stuff like burgers, candy and soda are cheaper than vegetables. That's why 1 in 3 children in the U.S. born after 2000 will suffer from diabetes (1 in 2 amongst minorities).

Did you know that it's illegial in some states to talk bad about the meat industry? If you do it anyway, you'll get sued.
The industry is working right now to make it illegal to film and show images of factory farming. Guess why...

Farmers that don't want to use genetically modified seeds are sued by the big companies, and as most of them can't afford a lawsuit they end up using those seeds sooner or later.

The whole system is very wrong and can only work like that because they have had a great lobby for decades and because the public doesn't seem to care or just doesn't know it.

borg number one
12-05-2009, 01:45 PM
SteadyEddy, were it not for lawsuits, defective and dangerous products would abound, because of the profit motive. It's that simple. The point is that for even something like coffee, we understand that it will be spilled by EVERYONE from time to time. I'm sure you have spilled coffee yourself from time to time correct?

Now, if McDonalds INSISTS on making its coffee 20 degrees hotter than others, then that leads to needless injuries. The jury found her to be contributorily negligent as well (20%), meaning that even if she had spilled the coffee, the fact that it was SO MUCH HOTTER than necessary caused her to sustain injuries she would not have sustained if it had been more in line with the industry norm.

Anyway, imagine if there was no litigation at all as to defective products. How do you think corporations behave if it was "just consumers" deciding with their pocketbook? The Ford Pinto example is just one other case in point as to why Corporations must be kept in check in this fashion. Purely government regulation is also deficient in obtaining Justice for those that are most impacted by defective products.

If you want to play the game and make profits in the marketplace, you also have to "pay the piper" when your products cause injuries and you are deemed to be negligent. Money damages are the only thing that makes corporations take notice and change practices. Nothing else will, other than the risk of being shut down. I got an MBA and have worked for several corporations before going to law school, so I have a detailed understanding of Net Profit, Share Prices, Corporate Ethics, as well as the use of the legal system. I've lived this stuff and seen all these things first hand.

As to the food industry, there are rampant problems in terms of quality control. I try to eat home cooked meals first and foremost, and also stay pure vegetarian. I've never once been "sick" because of anything I've eaten during my entire life.

WBF
12-05-2009, 01:53 PM
Again, I disagree. McDonald's reduced the temperature because of the outcome of a lawsuit. I think one should assume that coffee is served near boiling. If that is too dangerous for you, then stay away from coffee. I prepare my own coffee shortly after it boils and I assume the risk as a responsible adult.

Maybe you're confusing facts with your own values? What other basis can morality have than utilitarian? What risks must one assume if there is to be a somewhat free society? A hasty examination makes yours look good. But a deeper examination reveals problems. Give this some careful thought, I think you'll see that you have to change your mind.



The two quotes you responded to here are related. When you serve coffee MUCH hotter than the competition, and that temperature is what causes the burns (note: coffee from other establishments does NOT result in remotely similar burns), it's a problem.

Oh, and coffee is NOT served at the temperatures McDonalds was using. Why the hell would you think it is reasonable to assume this is the case?

Given your unreasonable posts thus far, I think I shall step out of this absurd argument. This case is a textbook example of how to find people who fail at ethics and law.

Steady Eddy
12-05-2009, 04:13 PM
Given your unreasonable posts thus far, I think I shall step out of this absurd argument. This case is a textbook example of how to find people who fail at ethics and law.So just declare yourself correct and flee? You're not even willing to respond to even a single post addressed to you. Sounds like you've convinced yourself of the soundness of your viewpoint anyway.

Steady Eddy
12-05-2009, 04:21 PM
SteadyEddy, were it not for lawsuits, defective and dangerous products would abound, because of the profit motive. It's that simple. The point is that for even something like coffee, we understand that it will be spilled by EVERYONE from time to time. I'm sure you have spilled coffee yourself from time to time correct?

Now, if McDonalds INSISTS on making its coffee 20 degrees hotter than others, then that leads to needless injuries. The jury found her to be contributorily negligent as well (20%), meaning that even if she had spilled the coffee, the fact that it was SO MUCH HOTTER than necessary caused her to sustain injuries she would not have sustained if it had been more in line with the industry norm.

Anyway, imagine if there was no litigation at all as to defective products. How do you think corporations behave if it was "just consumers" deciding with their pocketbook? The Ford Pinto example is just one other case in point as to why Corporations must be kept in check in this fashion. Purely government regulation is also deficient in obtaining Justice for those that are most impacted by defective products.

If you want to play the game and make profits in the marketplace, you also have to "pay the piper" when your products cause injuries and you are deemed to be negligent. Money damages are the only thing that makes corporations take notice and change practices. Nothing else will, other than the risk of being shut down. I got an MBA and have worked for several corporations before going to law school, so I have a detailed understanding of Net Profit, Share Prices, Corporate Ethics, as well as the use of the legal system. I've lived this stuff and seen all these things first hand.

As to the food industry, there are rampant problems in terms of quality control. I try to eat home cooked meals first and foremost, and also stay pure vegetarian. I've never once been "sick" because of anything I've eaten during my entire life.Fair enough. Previously, we were discussing the "McDonald's coffee lawsuit", now we're on to lawsuits in general. I don't care to expand the original scope. We disagree on that lawsuit. You've given your reasons and I've given mine, at least twice, so there's no point in my repeating them. At least we've stuck to the issues without anyone declaring the other one unreasonable scampering away. Thanks for arguing like a man.

35ft6
12-05-2009, 04:51 PM
This fallacy is known as ad populum. It amounts to saying that what most do isn't always right. My teachers used to say, "If all the others jumped off a cliff would you?" Whether or not serving coffee at 185 degrees F is negligent or not, needs to be established independently of what the other restaurants are doing.How would you go about it then? We're talking coffee so hot that surgery was necessary. Independent of what others think, do you think the coffee needs to be that hot?

meowmix
12-05-2009, 05:13 PM
Am I going to be drinking it immediately? If not, then I'd like my coffee near boiling so that when I do go to drink it, it's still hot.

Although I have to admit... when I buy coffee at any place and am drinking it immediately... I don't particularly enjoy how hot the stuff is. Shrugs...

Steady Eddy
12-05-2009, 05:26 PM
How would you go about it then? We're talking coffee so hot that surgery was necessary. Independent of what others think, do you think the coffee needs to be that hot?Ok, but let's set the stage in a fair way. We hear about the old woman needing surgery, then we hear how hot the coffee was, and then I'm asked to defend the hot coffee. I feel like one of those bad teens who appears on the "Maury Povich Show", where they walk on to "boos". But this is the manner in which it happened. McDonald's serves coffee through the drive thru and in the stores to be taken away by people who might not consume it until sometimes later. So maybe they serve it hotter than average, (though not hotter than Starbucks, who I recall serves it as hot as McDonalds). Water becomes steam past 212 degrees F, so coffee probably cannot get much hotter than that either, so there is a reasonable upper limit on the heat of coffee provided by physics, anyway. At any rate, we know they couldn't be serving coffee at temperatures of 400 degrees F, it's the everyday item we all know as hot coffee.

Now it would seem that the business was serving 180 degree coffee in an effort to please customers and not in an effort to torment old ladies. I've spilled boiling water on my hand, water that had to be nearly 212 degrees and even though it hurt, it left no burns, 3rd degree or otherwise. It seems she must have an unusual body to be this delicate. Perhaps walking to her mailbox leaves her horribly sunburned? Maybe mosquito bites leave a whole in her skin the size of a quarter? If she is so unusual in this sense, it's more reasonable for her to adapt to the world than for the world to adapt to her. Who would think that a common item like coffee would be so deadly to her? I don't attribute her injuries to malicious intent on behalf of the restaurant. Would you like to serve an elderly relative hot tea and then discover that you were going to lose everything you owned because people thought that this was a cruel act on your part? Chalk this unfortunate incident up to bad luck because if you argue that "well, if McDonald's hadn't served her the coffee, she wouldn't have been hurt, so it's their fault" this leads to other bad arguments. I suppose a parent who dropped their child off at Columbine High School might be charged with murder, "Well, if you hadn't taken them there, they'd still be alive, so it's your fault."

If we think about this in a looking backward kind of way, then we'll deduce culpability by McDonald's. But as the philosophers say, life has to be lived forward. Taking the forward perspective there's no villain in this. We only find a villain when we start with the accident, and then reason backwards into how it could have been prevented.

Thanks for asking in a tone of honesty and respect, I hope of held up my end as well. Some posters not only like to do a "victory lap" after they've won, some don't even make points, but just immediately go to the "victory lap" in an effort to confuse some into thinking they've made some sort of point.

Steady Eddy
12-05-2009, 05:28 PM
Although I have to admit... when I buy coffee at any place and am drinking it immediately... I don't particularly enjoy how hot the stuff is. Shrugs...
And you can't drink it right away!! You have to WAIT until it cools off???!!! Those jerks! Why do they think they can get away with this? Sue them. Sue them for everything they've got.

borg number one
12-06-2009, 02:37 AM
Steady Eddy, "punitive damages" are often awarded to punish, by sending a message to a wrongdoer, and "encouraging" that entity to not repeat negligence in the future. Punitive damage awards are dependent on the financial resources of the Defendant, so that's why Juries often give big awards when huge companies are sued. Otherwise, say a company like Microsoft loses a negligence case and has to pay punitive damages. Do you think 100K means the same to them as say a small company with just 100K in profit in 1 year? No. So larger the company, the larger the scope for punitive damage awards. That is done to deter a large company future negligence, or in some cases "gross negligence" and/or criminal acts. The financial resources of the Defendant is a big component of what size the punitive damage award is in the end, otherwise they just would not affect future behavior. Also, remember, McDonalds had done nothing about NUMEROUS (700 other cases) injuries that had been caused by its nearly boiling coffee before that lawsuit. Sometimes, no most of the time, a big case (bad publicity and large award) is the only thing that will change a corporation's practices. What is the alternative to this?

dropshot winner
12-06-2009, 04:52 AM
You want to sue McDonalds because the coffee is too hot, really? :shock:

How difficult is it to get a idea of how hot the coffee is before you take a sip? If you think it's too hot, just don't buy it ever again. It's as simple as that.


I find it funny how many people in this thread seem to care more about the coffee temperature than about what's in their food, how their tax money is wasted and their freedoms taken away step by step.

borg number one
12-06-2009, 06:00 AM
DW, no doubt, people should be WAY more concerned with food intake vs. coffee temperature.

Read back as to my previous post to see why McDonalds was sued in the first place due to coffee temperature. It took that lawsuit to make them reduce temperature, which was quite dangerous for those getting such coffee through take out especially.

We went off on a tangent as there was a discussion as to that infamous McDonalds lawsuit, and what that implied about the fear of litigation. There are certainly lots of myths associated with it.

Anyway, I was pointing out some of the common misconceptions as to exactly what that case was about. Having said that, I think McDonalds now probably has better quality control than a lot of places where you could eat out, but in general their food is incredibly unhealthy, nutrition wise.

You are right though in pointing out that the focus of this thread should be on all the bad foods that people tend to eat and especially the documentary brought up by the OP.

fruitytennis1
12-06-2009, 06:01 AM
Ok dont look at the results of what happend but at the incident itself. An old lady dropped hot coffee on herself and is sueing I believe on the basis that the coffee was too hot. Really people, really. Worry about real problems and not what stupid jury people deem wrong such as having too hot coffee. Now if some resturant is making hot chocolate for kids at that temperature that is wrong but its coffee which is drank hot not lukewarm.

borg number one
12-06-2009, 06:14 AM
See Post #11 with the reasons for that lawsuit and the result. Yes, hot coffee was in fact a real problem fruitytennis1.

Their coffee was about 180 degrees (about 20 degrees higher than other places) before the suit and caused numerous injuries as a result, since coffee, just like all other liquids does get spilled on occasion, which WILL occur for everyone over time, at least once.

That changed and they returned to industry norms, thereby avoiding future injuries, to people of ALL TYPES, not just one "old lady", in that there were at least 700 other cases that had caused injuries before that lawsuit.

WBF
12-06-2009, 06:32 AM
We should stop arguing about this. Clearly professors, academics, and professionals in the field of Law are mistaken, and we should accept the gospel of random internet nobodies like fruitytennis1 and Steady Eddy.

On a side note, my sister finally decided to go vegetarian (or at least, avoid factory produced meats) after watching this film. She was already heading that direction. Personally, I try to do the same when it's convenient... But in reality, simply being a consumer nowadays flies in the face of sustainability, human rights, and other important issues.

Steady Eddy
12-06-2009, 08:59 AM
What's wrong with a "let's investigate this" approach? Maybe at the beginning of an inquiry, one doesn't even know the decision one will have by the end? You have a pattern of suggesting that people ought not to have the audacity to even attempt their own analysis, and that they should just lie down and accept the verdict of "experts". Let's review the posts you've made over this subject.
Steady Eddy, I suggest that you inform yourself before posting on a topic you clearly aren't familiar with.
See? The message is "don't even post on a topic". Keep your thoughts to yourself or I, WBF will attack you. I'd think, even if wrong, shouldn't someone say, "I don't get why we can't do this?" even if it turns out to be wrong. Let's encourage people to speak up, and, who knows? They might even have a good suggestion!

Given your unreasonable posts thus far, I think I shall step out of this absurd argument. This case is a textbook example of how to find people who fail at ethics and law.You just declare things rather than demonstrate them. For example if a beginning algebra student were to believe that (x+y)^2 = x^2 + y^2, one could thunder that that's "wrong", that the text says it's wrong, and that expert mathematicians declare it to be wrong. But why not test instead of being dogmatic? In the case above, we might show how if x=2 and y=3, then the left side is 25 but the right is 13. This is more convincing to the student, but, one must have requisite skill to show how it's wrong. It's easier to memorize what textbooks and "experts" say than to understand. Isn't that right, WBF? For otherwise you'd show why, (if you could), than just make declarations.
We should stop arguing about this. Clearly professors, academics, and professionals in the field of Law are mistaken, and we should accept the gospel of random internet nobodies like fruitytennis1 and Steady Eddy.

Once again, truth resides in WHO people are than in what their arguments are. This isn't like I'm trying to challenge accepted science or math. A jury of laypeople made a decision, I don't see why that should be sacrosanct. They could be wrong. Are you implying that "professors, academics, and professinals in the field of Law" are all in uniform agreement on this jury's decision? (I'm also wondering what's the difference between professors and academics? Are you intentionally being redundant in order to make it appear you have broader support?) Also, scientists like Sagan and Asimov would always state how they welcomed chances to demonstrate their assertions. They didn't get defensive and complain that they need students who will accept them at their word, (have faith?). They welcomed people who'd challenge them. They're at one end of a spectrum, and you're at the other end, (not that there's anything wrong with that). At any rate, I apologize for forming my own opinions, and I promise greater conformity in the future.

jswinf
12-06-2009, 10:29 AM
Haven't seen Food Inc. but books like Omnivore's Dilemma and The End of Overeating paint a grim picture of the food industry too, and the movie Supersize Me was scary. I think it's time to bust the food industry for purposefully making and marketing stuff that is basically addictive and ignoring the negative health effects, like Big Tobacco being held responsible for maintaining nicotine levels at an addicting level because it was so helpful with sales. I guess it's started, I remember hearing about a lawsuit by some fat guy against McDonalds for making him fat. Got to admit my first reaction was like a lot of folks, "here's some fat-a** with no self-control shifting the blame and looking to cash in." I'm thinking more sympathetically now.

Topaz
12-06-2009, 10:52 AM
Ok dont look at the results of what happend but at the incident itself. An old lady dropped hot coffee on herself and is sueing I believe on the basis that the coffee was too hot. Really people, really. Worry about real problems and not what stupid jury people deem wrong such as having too hot coffee. Now if some resturant is making hot chocolate for kids at that temperature that is wrong but its coffee which is drank hot not lukewarm.

That's right people! Coffee is supposed to be HOT!

So hot, in fact, that it BURNS OFF YOUR SKIN AND NERVE ENDINGS. ON YOUR GROIN!

jswinf
12-06-2009, 10:58 AM
I don't drink coffee with my groin, I'm not an elephant.

borg number one
12-06-2009, 03:30 PM
JSWINF, I don't understand your post above. You may want to clarify it.

Elephants drink with their mouths, only using their TRUNKS, DEFINITELY NOT THEIR GROINS, to suck up water and then take it to their mouths. Furthermore, the trunk is the nose for an elephant. Also, yes, it's definitely a great idea to avoid trying to drink hot coffee using the groin area.

jswinf
12-06-2009, 08:02 PM
Well, you know, using a (semi?) prehensile member in the vicinity of the groin to suck up coffee to squirt into the mouth struck me as interesting imagery, though impossibe, uncomfortable, and unhygenic. Kind of hard to seriously defend, though.

borg number one
12-07-2009, 06:09 PM
Ok, gotcha, lol, I see what you're talking about now. Ouch!!

stormholloway
12-07-2009, 06:27 PM
Yeah, but you know...the meat industry has been around a long time, why would it all of a sudden become less sanitary? Back when Teddy Roosevelt was president alot of 'reforms' occurred because of a novel, The Jungle, which had some descriptions of the stockyards. So complaining about poisoned meat isn't anything new.

I don't know; maybe because cows eat genetically modified corn and get no exercise now.

If such a high percentage of the meat that sold is poisoned, why aren't more people getting sick? McDonalds was famously sued for having coffee that was 'too hot', then if million of the billions of burgers they've sold were poisoned I'd expect a slew of lawsuits. A simpler explanation for the things presented in these alarming documentaries is that the producers will get a bigger response by scaring everyone than by being balanced.

The truth is that modern fitness regimes and better understanding of nutrition have simply offset the fact that humans are eating fake food. Not to mention that it's possible that we simply haven't seen the long term effects of these changes yet.

I'm about as worried that the next burger I eat will kill me as I am worried about Florida going underwater. Relax, enjoy life. Real dangers come from terrorists and criminals, (people the left tell us are harmless), and not so much from corporations like Safeway, and McDonalds, (entities the left insists are the bane of all existence).

This is the basic problem with your "relax" argument: not everyone has indicated absolute panic. Concern does not equal panic. If you don't feel any amount of concern from the world's food supply being permanently modified, then you should be panicking about your own carelessness.

Real dangers come from terrorists? Thanks GW. But really, what are the statistics regarding deaths occurring from poor nutrition versus deaths occurring from terrorism in the US? So you're implying we should be more fearful of fundamentalists bombing us rather than what we put in our bodies, that which will absolutely affect us?

You are what you eat, nimrod.

Steady Eddy
12-07-2009, 07:35 PM
You are what you eat, nimrod.
What's that about? Having a bad day?

Racer41c
12-07-2009, 08:10 PM
Description: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0


Have you seen it?
If not, you REALLY should, especially if you live in america where the problem is at its worst.

Basically all the food is controlled by a handful of corperations. Cows went from walking and eating grass to standing all their live knee deep in their own **** and eating corn along thousands of others. And that's just one of the sick and distugsting aspects of the whole twisted food system that is talked about in the movie.
It's shocking, to say the least.

I agree with you 100% and yes I've seen the movie and think it's very even balanced and informative.

I would say however, that your summary should include the root cause of the problem which is.... new 4 letter word: GOVT.

35ft6
12-08-2009, 10:54 AM
I would say however, that your summary should include the root cause of the problem which is.... new 4 letter word: GOVT.But the government is being constantly lobbied by the food industry, and are forced to appoint people FROM the food industry to regulate the food industry. And by "forced" I mean they won't get re-elected if big business doesn't contribute to their campaigns. And that goes for politicians and big business in general.

The part about Monsanto was infuriating. Trying to OWN a crop that has been around forever. And people are trying to privatize water as well. Man.

For those who haven't seen the movie, this site is a good introduction:

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

It's available on Netflix streaming. Watch it anytime.

35ft6
12-08-2009, 11:02 AM
I don't know; maybe because cows eat genetically modified corn and get no exercise now.And are raised completely differently. They are so jammed packed together they are up to their knees and literally covered in crap when they begin their magical journey through the meat assembly line. And illnesses develop and spread very fast in under these conditions, where animals are shoulder to shoulder next to each other in an enclosed space. Home May 2009
Scientists Predicted Flu Outbreak, Blame Food Production Practices

May 1, 2009

The story about the worldwide viral outbreak seems to be developing almost hourly, and even the name has changed from "swine flu" to "H-1-N-1 Influenza A." But, no matter what it's called, some scientists say the cause is industrial animal farming, which serves as an incubator for viruses and bacteria.

Bob Martin, senior officer of the Pew Environment Group, says his group sounded the alarm last year in a report that found overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, made possible by routine use of human antibiotics, allowed super bugs to pass quickly between animals and to farm workers. The group even predicted such an outbreak, he says.

"Its a little bit frustrating when you issue a report and nothing happens, and then the situation that you fear comes to fruition. We considered it not a matter of if, but when it would happen. Its tragic."

Martin hopes this health crisis will focus attention on fixing what he calls our broken food production system.

"I think we have to change our food animal production system or this will just keep happening. The system itself is sick, and its a little bit like treating a disease symptom without treating the cause of the disease."

One of Pew's recommendations is for frequent testing of farm workers to stop the spread of disease. Dr. Glenn Morris, executive director of the Emerging Pathogens Institute at the University of Florida says better testing and monitoring are needed.

"Clearly, this is a highly transmissible strain. The fact that it has now appeared in seven different countries suggests it can move very quickly. Were going to need to see whether it is possible to isolate these pockets where it's been identified, or whether it is just going to move inexorably through populations."

Feedlot owners and farm advocates point to the Centers for Disease Control, which finds the current influenza strain isnt spread by pork products. They also argue their production practices are essential to providing a reliable supply of meat products, and that they cannot be blamed if viruses and bacteria spread to humans.

In 2002, Florida voters banned confinement of pregnant pigs in gestation crates, which some say drove at least two large pig farms out of the state.