http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/11/tr...eut/index.html
McDonald's has agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle a lawsuit over artery-clogging trans fats in its cooking oils, the company said Friday.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/11/tr...eut/index.html
McDonald's has agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle a lawsuit over artery-clogging trans fats in its cooking oils, the company said Friday.
Originally Posted by myssi
"Agreed to pay" is a highly misleading teaser. "Agreed to donate" is the truth. Terms of the settlement include:Pursuant to the class action, McDonald’s will donate $7 million to the American Heart Association, to be used exclusively for any or all of the following activities based on the Association's judgment as to the most effective use of the funds:
- Public education regarding trans fat.
- Encouraging substitution of partially hydrogenated oils by the food industry.
- Holding conferences on health issues associated with trans fat and the substitution of partially hydrogenated oils.
McDonald’s is also required to spend up to $1.5 million on publishing notices to ensure that the public knows the status of its trans fat initiative. If the cost of publishing the notices is less than $1.5 million, the difference will be donated to the American Heart Association.
- Other activities regarding the impact of trans fat on public health.
McDonald’s will pay $7,500 to BanTransFats.com, and $7,500 to Plaintiff Katherine Fettke which she is donating to charity.
(from http://www.bantransfats.com/mcdonalds.html)
One of the Plaintiffs (issue based non-profit web site ) receieves $7500 ( $0 for the other class action members), the other Plaintiff $7500, which will be donated to charity.
Trans fats are widely known to be highly dangerous and a major contributor to coronary disease. Yet the giant agribusiness lobby has effectively shut down any government oversight that might have prevented yet another case of greed gone wild. Transfats include margarine and shortening, cheaply manufatured substitutes for the naturally produced original versions, butter and lard. Butter and lard are now widely known to be far healthier than the agribusiness manufactured versions, but of course much less profitable.
In the total absence of FDA or other government oversight, these plaintiffs stepped up to raise the public awareness. To their enormous credit, McDonald's chose to do the right thing, and contribute to a solution to a health care problem which they have historically only exacerbated. No one gets rich here. The public is ultimately the primary beneficiary.
Fight on, brothers... before the "tort-reform" crack pipe has deluded public perception beyond all hope.





More corporate extortion by trial lawyers - the total settment amount includes a hefty chunk of legal fees which went into both the plaintiff's and defendant's trial lawyer's pockets ! The only real benefit to the general public is a price increase on MacDonalds and other competitor's fast food products to cover future lawsuit and settlement costs !
Not true. Defendant (presumably) pays their own legal fees like any bill and Plaintiff's as well, but by Court order.Originally Posted by Melonie
The dollar amount of such fees, however, is unrelated to the settlement amount. Plaintiff's legal fees will be determined by the Court, after a fee application is submitted. Courts are typically very tight fisted about fee awards, reflecting their bitterness over their own measly salaries.
![]()
Or maybe....fast food restaurants might take another look at what they call "food" and make a few changes... lest they get busted again for screwing with the masses of hapless consumers binging on their products.The only real benefit to the general public is a price increase on MacDonalds and other competitor's fast food products to cover future lawsuit and settlement costs
+
=
![]()
Last edited by stant; 02-12-2005 at 06:59 AM.





My point was that the trial attorneys for both the plaintiff and defendant got paid a large amount of money - not whether it was the plaintiff or the defendent or the US taxpayer who actually picked up the cost of legal fees.Not true. Defendant pays both their own legal fees and Plaintiff's
Paying someone a standard hourly fee for a case they took on completely at risk hardly seems unreasonable, as you seem to be implying by "large amount of money." Most plaintiff attorneys would consider taking on a case 100% at risk with the best possible outcome merely a fee award a bad frigin idea. Seems like I've been hearing about this other profession that often gets accused of excessive hourly rates and greediness. Hmmm.... Plumbers?Originally Posted by Melonie
![]()
Bookmarks