Fighting Obesity in the Courts: Fast Food Lawsuits
This paper examines the legal and cultural debate surrounding childhood obesity and fast food corporations in the United States. Drawing on the Big Tobacco litigation model, it analyzes why lawsuits against McDonald's and other fast food chains — most notably Pelman v. McDonald's Corporation — have largely failed to survive trial court proceedings. The paper discusses the difficulty of proving deceptive advertising, the role of personal versus corporate responsibility, and legislative efforts such as the "cheeseburger bill" to shield fast food companies from obesity-related suits. It concludes that absent new incriminating evidence, the legal status quo is unlikely to shift.
- Introduction: The Childhood Obesity Epidemic: CDC data frames the childhood obesity crisis
- Suing 'Big Food': Big Tobacco model applied to fast food suits
- Did McDonald's Violate the American Sense of Fair Play?: Pelman v. McDonald's and why it failed
- Rushing to the Aid of 'Big Food': Legislative efforts to block obesity lawsuits
- Conclusion: Personal vs. corporate responsibility verdict
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses an extended analogy — the Big Tobacco litigation model — to frame and evaluate the viability of fast food lawsuits, giving the argument a clear comparative structure.
- Balances legal analysis with cultural commentary, noting that jury decisions ultimately reflect the public's "sense of fair play" rather than abstract legal doctrine.
- Acknowledges countervailing considerations (parental responsibility, children's vulnerability, legislative motives) rather than presenting a one-sided argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative legal analysis: it establishes criteria for a successful tort claim by examining a precedent case (Big Tobacco), then systematically tests whether the fast food lawsuits meet those criteria. This technique — identify the benchmark, apply the standard, assess the gap — allows the writer to reach a reasoned conclusion without simply asserting an opinion.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with CDC statistics to establish the scale of the obesity problem, then introduces the litigation strategy modeled on Big Tobacco. A central section closely examines the Pelman v. McDonald's case and explains why it collapsed at the trial court level. A shorter section covers legislative counter-responses ("cheeseburger bill"). The conclusion synthesizes the personal-versus-corporate responsibility theme and offers a measured prediction about future litigation prospects. Five sections in total, each with a focused purpose.
Introduction: The Childhood Obesity Epidemic
The "obesity epidemic" has garnered much attention from the news media and Western governments over the past decade. Their concern is well founded: there has been a three-fold increase in the prevalence of childhood obesity in the United States since 1980 (reviewed by Gleason and Dodd S118). According to a survey conducted in 2009 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 12.0% and 15.8% of all school-aged children were judged to be either obese or overweight, respectively ("Surveillance Summaries" 28). That is close to 30% of all K–12 students in the United States having a weight problem. Should a weight problem become entrenched in a child's life, their academic performance will suffer and they face an increased risk of developing significant mental and physical health problems as adults (reviewed by Gleason and Dodd S118). The future costs of this epidemic to Western societies could be staggering.
Many theories have been proposed to explain the epidemic rise in overweight school children, including a sedentary lifestyle driven by television watching and electronic gaming, excessive sugar and saturated fat consumption, aggressive marketing of junk food to children, a lack of food-labeling guidelines that help children and adults make informed dietary choices, oversized portions, and the absence of nutritional education (CDC "Overweight and Obesity"). Parents and children alike are therefore faced with a culture that seems to encourage childhood obesity, so it should come as no surprise that some parents and their attorneys are fighting back through lawsuits alleging that fast food restaurants — like McDonald's — have engaged in misleading and false marketing practices that directly contribute to the childhood obesity problem.
Works Cited
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Overweight and Obesity: A Growing Problem." cdc.gov. 2011. Web. 9 Sept. 2011.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Surveillance Summaries: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2009." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 59.SS-5 (2010): 1–142.
CNN. "Obesity: 'Cheeseburger Bill' Puts Bite on Lawsuits." cnn.com. 20 Oct. 2005. Web. 9 Sept. 2011.
Gleason, Philip M., and Allison Hedley Dodd. "School Breakfast Program but Not School Lunch Program Participation Is Associated with Lower Body Mass Index." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 109.2 (2009): S118–S128.
Robinson, Melissa Grills, Paul N. Bloom, and Nicholas H. Lurie. "Combating Obesity in the Courts: Will Lawsuits Against McDonald's Work?" American Marketing Association 24.2 (Fall 2005): 299–306. Web. 9 Sept. 2011.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.