Lawsuit 'Discriminatory' Gluten-Free Menu
Replies
-
Oh boy....I'm getting ready.
0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
Yes! I like that result, honestly.
It was probably the right thing to do anyhow... though a chain restaurant, they prepare food by hand and I cannot imagine they are particularly consistent with quantities of things that are typically added "to taste" or used as garnishes and sauces. The numbers were probably largely meaningless.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Disability is the consequence of an impairment that may be physical, cognitive, mental, sensory, emotional, developmental, or some combination of these.
how is celiac a disability...someone explain! if celiac is a disability does that mean my lactose intolerance is one as well?
Under US law...yes. What reasonable accommodation would you like to have?
That seems to me unclear at best. For example, from Griffin v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (5th Cir. 2011):“[N]either the Supreme Court nor this court has recognized the concept of a per se disability under the ADA, no matter how serious the impairment; the plaintiff still must adduce evidence of an impairment that has actually and substantially limited the major life activity on which he relies.” Waldrip, 325 F.3d at 656. Griffin's restrictions on what and how much to eat are at the moderate end of the diabetes spectrum and do not amount to a significant restriction on his eating. Accordingly, this case is closely analogous to those in which our sister circuits have concluded that modest dietary restrictions concomitant with an employee's diabetic condition do not amount to substantial limitations under the ADA. See Carreras, 596 F.3d at 34 (“Proof that a medical condition requires medication, a fixed meal schedule, [and] timely snack breaks, without more, does not amount to a ‘substantial limitation’ under the ADA.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Collado v. United Parcel Serv., Co., 419 F.3d 1143, 1156 (11th Cir.2005) ( “Many people have to *224 monitor their food intake for health and lifestyle reasons, and avoiding ‘mostly sugars' is not ‘significantly restricted’ for this purpose. If it were, all insulin-dependent diabetics would have a ‘disability’ for ADA purposes, and we know from Sutton that they do not.”); but see Fraser, 342 F.3d at 1041 (“We must carefully separate those who have simple dietary restrictions from those who are truly disabled. At the same time, we must permit those who are disabled because of severe dietary restrictions to enjoy the protections of the ADA.”).
The cases that the 2008 amendment were responding to were different, as I recall--in particular dealt with disabilities that interfered with the ability to work.
There's no way the courts will start deciding that restaurants MUST provide meals to accommodate those with any kind of allergy, IMO, which would be the natural result of the interpretation you are pushing, so substantially limits can't just mean "I can't order at PF Chang's" or "I can't order at PF Chang's without paying $4 more if I want an appetizer AND dessert."
ADA is very important, and in terms of Celiac, is the reason why some dorming college kids even have accommodations and kitchens in order to prepare food, for example. It's sadly abused in cases like this pathetic lawsuit. The law states that reasonable accommodations need to be made, and they are being made. They don't have to make them. Bakeries don't make accommodations for Celiac persons, neither do many larger chains. In the end, this woman is just pissing us all off.0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
The person who posted about the restaurant said it was a chain restaurant.0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Oh it flies in NYC. There are plenty, I daresay most, restaurants without caloric info. Perhaps you're thinking mainly of quick serve places? Never saw calories on the menu at Per Se...
0 -
double post
0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
The person who posted about the restaurant said it was a chain restaurant.
Understood. I was just clarifying. Again. Because....well, just wait.0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Oh it flies in NYC. There are plenty, I daresay most, restaurants without caloric info. Perhaps you're thinking mainly of quick serve places? Never saw calories on the menu at Per Se...
The person said it was a chain restaurant. Never saw a chain restaurant in Manhattan without caloric info. Not that I've been to many, since I can't eat at most anyway, because I'm gluten-free and either I'm too broke for it or they don't accomodate. Manhattan is an expensive place to eat if you're gluten-free.0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places
It's dependent on the number of restaurants that the chain has...I think it's 10 or 15 or something.0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places
It's dependent on the number of restaurants that the chain has...I think it's 10 or 15 or something.
Interesting... city ordnance? I've never been to a chain in NYC, mainly because WHY
But if it were just based on number of restaurants and that law were applied more broadly in other geographies, that could be a real problem for chains that dont really prepare recipes consistently0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places
It's dependent on the number of restaurants that the chain has...I think it's 10 or 15 or something.
I don't like it. I live close to NYC and the menus here have that stuff, and it kills my appetite for food to see it. Wish they would keep it in NYC.0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places
It's dependent on the number of restaurants that the chain has...I think it's 10 or 15 or something.
Interesting... city ordnance? I've never been to a chain in NYC, mainly because WHY
But if it were just based on number of restaurants and that law were applied more broadly in other geographies, that could be a real problem for chains that dont really prepare recipes consistently
It was part of the original NYC ordinance back in the day. The pilot that Bloomberg launched. I don't know the rules today. But that's why some have them and some don't.0 -
where do you get your coffee- starbucks and dunkin on every corner- even some of the "local" big name diners- all have calorie counts- i know Benesh isn't a chain- it has calorie counts.HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places
It's dependent on the number of restaurants that the chain has...I think it's 10 or 15 or something.
Interesting... city ordnance? I've never been to a chain in NYC, mainly because WHY
But if it were just based on number of restaurants and that law were applied more broadly in other geographies, that could be a real problem for chains that dont really prepare recipes consistently
0 -
Here it is http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/07/menu-labelling
Any outfit with more than 15 branches nationwide.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »Back to the original topic, my fear is that this lawsuit could cause restaurants to stop offering gluten free menus, that would be very very bad for all celiacs.
This!
If she actually is gluten free then she already knows that gluten free foods are more expensive for a variety of reasons. That cost always gets passed on to the consumer. I love when places have gluten free menus or are willing to make something special for me because I have celiac. I am, actually, more likely to go to PF Chang's now0 -
I think you can purchase gluten free sense of humor from Whole Foods.Adrianox85 wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »
So, if this is now a disability, does that mean I can park in the handicapped parking spots?
This is really ignorant.
0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places
It's dependent on the number of restaurants that the chain has...I think it's 10 or 15 or something.
I don't like it. I live close to NYC and the menus here have that stuff, and it kills my appetite for food to see it. Wish they would keep it in NYC.
Agreed.0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places
It's dependent on the number of restaurants that the chain has...I think it's 10 or 15 or something.
Interesting... city ordnance? I've never been to a chain in NYC, mainly because WHY
But if it were just based on number of restaurants and that law were applied more broadly in other geographies, that could be a real problem for chains that dont really prepare recipes consistently
It was part of the original NYC ordinance back in the day. The pilot that Bloomberg launched. I don't know the rules today. But that's why some have them and some don't.
I can just imagine a chain like McCormick and Schmicks...or any similar chains that prepare slightly more complicated food...having trouble with nutritional data being accurate. But now we've gone all off topic. My bad.0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
Yes! I like that result, honestly.
It was probably the right thing to do anyhow... though a chain restaurant, they prepare food by hand and I cannot imagine they are particularly consistent with quantities of things that are typically added "to taste" or used as garnishes and sauces. The numbers were probably largely meaningless.
They are, the variables are unreal, I learned that my first week in the food industry. It's fine to get the numbers, but any legitimate chain would at best be within 50% plus or minus of their posted numbers.
Do you really want to try to do anything with data like that?0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places
It's dependent on the number of restaurants that the chain has...I think it's 10 or 15 or something.
Interesting... city ordnance? I've never been to a chain in NYC, mainly because WHY
But if it were just based on number of restaurants and that law were applied more broadly in other geographies, that could be a real problem for chains that dont really prepare recipes consistently
It was part of the original NYC ordinance back in the day. The pilot that Bloomberg launched. I don't know the rules today. But that's why some have them and some don't.
I can just imagine a chain like McCormick and Schmicks...or any similar chains that prepare slightly more complicated food...having trouble with nutritional data being accurate. But now we've gone all off topic. My bad.
Oh I completely agree. And I am SURE it stifled some growth plans, which sucks for the economy.
0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places
It's dependent on the number of restaurants that the chain has...I think it's 10 or 15 or something.
Interesting... city ordnance? I've never been to a chain in NYC, mainly because WHY
But if it were just based on number of restaurants and that law were applied more broadly in other geographies, that could be a real problem for chains that dont really prepare recipes consistently
It was part of the original NYC ordinance back in the day. The pilot that Bloomberg launched. I don't know the rules today. But that's why some have them and some don't.
I can just imagine a chain like McCormick and Schmicks...or any similar chains that prepare slightly more complicated food...having trouble with nutritional data being accurate. But now we've gone all off topic. My bad.
They all have recipes to base a ballpark figure on. It's never exact, but close enough. Website info for whatever chain isn't exact, either, since some people are heavy handed with their portions. It's more about saying, hey, this item as listed is around 1000 calories, not like, 300 calories, which you probably think it is.0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
Yes! I like that result, honestly.
It was probably the right thing to do anyhow... though a chain restaurant, they prepare food by hand and I cannot imagine they are particularly consistent with quantities of things that are typically added "to taste" or used as garnishes and sauces. The numbers were probably largely meaningless.
They are, the variables are unreal, I learned that my first week in the food industry. It's fine to get the numbers, but any legitimate chain would at best be within 50% plus or minus of their posted numbers.
Do you really want to try to do anything with data like that?
I know...I'm always wondering about that myself when cooking. Do these numbers mean anything? Even if I know what I put in, how much fat did I render off that duck breast? How much olive oil is ON my sauteed veggies and how much is really just left in the pan. I have a hard time logging for this same reason. Seems only useful with packaged and processed foods, or simple things I eat raw and weigh.
0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »But if it were just based on number of restaurants and that law were applied more broadly in other geographies, that could be a real problem for chains that dont really prepare recipes consistently
Well, as of the end of this year all chains with more than 20 restaurants are supposed to have them.
Pretty much all the chain-like places around here (some with fewer than 10 locations) seem to have them (I'm in Chicago), and I like it but the idea that it's going to have some huge effect on the obesity rate or how many calories people consume seems unlikely to me.
I also mostly go to local, non-chain restaurants that, of course, don't have that information, and I'd be annoyed if they were forced to try to do it at the expense of their flexibility and ability to compete (in that it's a greater burden on small restaurants). It's my choice as a consumer to prioritize local restaurants with interesting and changing menus over calorie information, and if my priorities were different there are plenty of restaurants I could choose from.
(Okay, in case we are going into that topic, that's my POV.) ;-)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »But if it were just based on number of restaurants and that law were applied more broadly in other geographies, that could be a real problem for chains that dont really prepare recipes consistently
Well, as of the end of this year all chains with more than 20 restaurants are supposed to have them.
Pretty much all the chain-like places around here (some with fewer than 10 locations) seem to have them (I'm in Chicago), and I like it but the idea that it's going to have some huge effect on the obesity rate or how many calories people consume seems unlikely to me.
I also mostly go to local, non-chain restaurants that, of course, don't have that information, and I'd be annoyed if they were forced to try to do it at the expense of their flexibility and ability to compete (in that it's a greater burden on small restaurants). It's my choice as a consumer to prioritize local restaurants with interesting and changing menus over calorie information, and if my priorities were different there are plenty of restaurants I could choose from.
(Okay, in case we are going into that topic, that's my POV.) ;-)
I'm pretty sure most of us are ready to blow 1000+ cals on eating a nice meal out, or at least I am, mostly because I can only usually physically eat once that day if I'm eating stuff that isn't made the way I make it (low fat, high protein, lower than average carbs, etc). And let's face it, going out somewhere kind of nice for a salad is a sad thing to do (IMO).0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »But if it were just based on number of restaurants and that law were applied more broadly in other geographies, that could be a real problem for chains that dont really prepare recipes consistently
Well, as of the end of this year all chains with more than 20 restaurants are supposed to have them.
Pretty much all the chain-like places around here (some with fewer than 10 locations) seem to have them (I'm in Chicago), and I like it but the idea that it's going to have some huge effect on the obesity rate or how many calories people consume seems unlikely to me.
I also mostly go to local, non-chain restaurants that, of course, don't have that information, and I'd be annoyed if they were forced to try to do it at the expense of their flexibility and ability to compete (in that it's a greater burden on small restaurants). It's my choice as a consumer to prioritize local restaurants with interesting and changing menus over calorie information, and if my priorities were different there are plenty of restaurants I could choose from.
(Okay, in case we are going into that topic, that's my POV.) ;-)
I'm pretty sure most of us are ready to blow 1000+ cals on eating a nice meal out, or at least I am, mostly because I can only usually physically eat once that day if I'm eating stuff that isn't made the way I make it (low fat, high protein, lower than average carbs, etc). And let's face it, going out somewhere kind of nice for a salad is a sad thing to do (IMO).
I completely agree with you.
But, you would be surprised at the way this conversation goes sometimes.0 -
NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »NJGamerChick wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
That wouldn't fly in NYC, where it is pretty much law to have caloric info on the menu.
Only for chain restaurants.
not even all chains... I think it's just certain categories of quick serve places
It's dependent on the number of restaurants that the chain has...I think it's 10 or 15 or something.
Interesting... city ordnance? I've never been to a chain in NYC, mainly because WHY
But if it were just based on number of restaurants and that law were applied more broadly in other geographies, that could be a real problem for chains that dont really prepare recipes consistently
It was part of the original NYC ordinance back in the day. The pilot that Bloomberg launched. I don't know the rules today. But that's why some have them and some don't.
I can just imagine a chain like McCormick and Schmicks...or any similar chains that prepare slightly more complicated food...having trouble with nutritional data being accurate. But now we've gone all off topic. My bad.
They all have recipes to base a ballpark figure on. It's never exact, but close enough. Website info for whatever chain isn't exact, either, since some people are heavy handed with their portions. It's more about saying, hey, this item as listed is around 1000 calories, not like, 300 calories, which you probably think it is.
We might maybe disagree about how useful that data is. I dont ever find myself thinking something is 300 calories only to find out it is instead 1000 calories. My ballpark needs to be pretty small... but maybe for many other people, those broad ranges are useful.
0 -
To have an educated and informed opinion about the McDonald's case, you should read it. I'm not advocating for one side or the other, but I do know WHY she sued and why she WON the lawsuit. In this particular case it's not the way the media made it out to be, but as Americans, we consumed the way the case was presented by the media and never gave it a second thought...we just blame the old woman for a frivolous lawsuit. If it HAD been frivolous, it would have been thrown out. Just so you know.0
-
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
Yes! I like that result, honestly.
It was probably the right thing to do anyhow... though a chain restaurant, they prepare food by hand and I cannot imagine they are particularly consistent with quantities of things that are typically added "to taste" or used as garnishes and sauces. The numbers were probably largely meaningless.
They are, the variables are unreal, I learned that my first week in the food industry. It's fine to get the numbers, but any legitimate chain would at best be within 50% plus or minus of their posted numbers.
Do you really want to try to do anything with data like that?
I know...I'm always wondering about that myself when cooking. Do these numbers mean anything? Even if I know what I put in, how much fat did I render off that duck breast? How much olive oil is ON my sauteed veggies and how much is really just left in the pan. I have a hard time logging for this same reason. Seems only useful with packaged and processed foods, or simple things I eat raw and weigh.
At home I log full value of everything, if something is rendered off or left in the pan, bonus. However, I remember how much variability you could get just from the cook and the mood.
We had one saute cook that started every dish with a 1 oz ladle of oil. another one preferred using the 2oz ladles... another didn't like using oil, and instead would use an ice cream scoop in the butter...0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »SapiensPisces wrote: »
What the heck is GMO-Free salt?
I specifically said "raging donkey dick," not "heck." "Heck" doesn't even come close to the force of "raging donkey dick." C'mon mods, what's wrong with raging donkey dick? Do you have something against *kitten*?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions