McDonald’s: The Blame Game, $$$$$$ and Ethics

The Liebeck and Pelman cases brought against McDonald’s reminds me that we live in a society where there is often a monetary value placed on accountability and responsibility. While it seems that some lawsuits are of a frivolous nature, there are others that appear more legitimate. This is how I feel about the cases in this case study.

I believe that in Liebeck vs McDonald’s the plaintiff legitimately proposed that McDonald’s was responsible and accountable for the 3^rd degree burns she incurred as a result of the scalding hot coffee she spilled on herself. It is a reasonable assumption that when you buy a hot drink that if spilled, you will at most suffer from redness or irritation, not severe burns. The negligence of McDonald’s is made clear when you account for the hundreds of complaints that they had already received about the temperature of their coffee. These concerns and complaints were ignored until Liebeck brought a suit against them. If McDonald’s made an effort to rectify the problems as they were made aware of it, this suit would not have been necessary. The company should take responsibility for their faulty or defective product. They are liable for their product, especially because they were told about its defectiveness on several occasions.

I stand on the opposite side of the fence when it concerns the Pelman vs McDonald’s case. Blaming McDonald’s for your obesity is absurd. How one can attach responsibility to anyone but themselves for eating large quantities of fast food on a consist basis, I will never understand. The foundation of McDonald’s and other fast food chains is the provision of quick comfort food to their customers. It is reasonably obvious that the faster a food is prepared, the less nutritious it may be. This is because there has to be a lot of pre-preparation and preservatives to keep the food edible and reduce the cooking time required. Pelman decided, through no fault of McDonald’s to gorge on their food without the accompaniment of exercise and other nutritious foods. Just because a company advertises their product doesn’t mean that you have to consume it. There is a choice. It is not like cigarettes, where there is a highly addictive ingredient that has caused smokers to be hooked on a product that is not good for them. Pelman’s penchant for McDonald’s food comes from sheer overeating and self-inflicted addiction. Pelman’s lack of consumer due diligence and self-control should not be blamed on the fast food giant.

I can appreciate that a lot of good things came out of the case. McDonald’s became more informative about the nutritional value of their products and also began to offer healthier options, especially for children. The addition of milk and apple wedges to the menu is not surprising in light of the pressure the company faces to do better by joining the health wave.

McDonald’s can market their products in an ethical way to vulnerable audiences like children by placing an emphasis on the choice parent’s must make for the health and wellness of their children. Although children do not have the financial resources to make purchasing decisions, advertisers still target them in hopes that what the children see will be what they ask their parents for. McDonald’s lures child interest with the promotion of their Happy Meal. This meal includes a toy and colorful packaging. As I stated before, McDonald’s is trying harder to offer healthier options to children. To ethically market their products to children, they may benefit from prompting kids to talk to their parents about healthy eating and exercise. This will demonstrate that the youth target market is important to them without the appearance that their health is of little concern. Ultimately, it is up to the parents and guardians of these children to control their diet and instill good eating and lifestyle choices.