Unhealthy Lunches

Unhealthy Lunches

Module 4: Assignment 2

For this assignment, we are to write an analytical paper about a case where the parents of the Randall, a 12 year old elementary student, suffering from obesity and high cholesterol with the high risk of diabetes, are suing the fast food restaurant call, Drive-In Don which sells the most delicious burgers in town at the most affordable price. The elementary and high school around the area is contracted with the restaurant to serve their burgers during lunch hour.

The parents of Randall, George and Mary, would have a case against the restaurant and the school because the food that was being given to the children were causing them health issues. The school has the responsibility to provide children with a healthy, balance, nutritional meals to ensure their diet. There are many ways that the school can substitute the food for a healthy diet but they have chosen to feed the children with fast food burgers from Drive-In Dons instead. The school is oblivious of what kind of side effects that could come from eating food with high cholesterol. There are many other vendors who could offer the school a healthier diet for the children, but they rather contract themselves with Drive-In Don, ignoring the student’s health. This unhealthy lunch case not only affected Randall but other students who consume the burgers as well. It is against the consumer protection laws to simply ignore the student’s health when the school should be aware of the unhealthy side effects of such food. There is a case for the restaurant as well since they have engaged in illegal misleading advertisement of its food. They did not enclosed any ingredients regarding the preparation of its food to the consumer because according to the consumer protection laws, the consumers has the right to know what type of ingredients are in the food that they are eating. Randall is a very young adolescent who should not be suffering from obesity and high cholesterol with the risk of diabetes, yet the school and restaurant are still serving such unhealthy food to the students.

The school’s defense could be that they only offer burgers for lunch and it would be up to the parents to control what their children intake for breakfast along with dinner. They can also argue that if the parents are unhappy with what the school is providing for their child during lunch time, they should prepare their children’s lunch for them to take to school. In addition, the school can simply state that they, too, were fooled by the restaurant’s advertising which would put the entire case towards the restaurant itself. The restaurant, on the other hand, would have a lot to prove for this case because the accusations made by Randall’s parents are very strong since it would go against the consumer rights. Deceitful advertising is illegal with punishment of the risk of losing their business. Also, the restaurant did not provide a list of ingredients that are put into their products along with nutritional facts for the consumers to obtain. There are many ways the restaurant can defend itself, such as stating it was not their choice to provide the burgers but that they were contracted by the school to supply them only. They can also claim that they have a healthier menu with lower cholesterol level which the school can choose from. These claims could actually work in favor of the restaurant because they have no obligation whatsoever to when it comes to what type of food the children consume. Determining what type of food to be served to school children would be between the school and the parents therefore the responsibility lays with them.

“The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is an independent federal agency whose main goals are to protect consumers and to ensure a strong competitive market by enforcing a variety of consumer protection and antitrust laws. These laws guard against harmful business practices and protect the market from anti-competitive practices such as large mergers and price-fixing conspiracies (Investopedia, 2016).” The FTC can help the plaintiffs since they play the role of making sure the consumers are not deceived by advertising. Although the FTC does not have the capability to enforce any ruling, but they can still go to court to have it enforced. In this particular case, Drive-Ins Don has deceptive advertisement in regards to their burgers which the school has gained a contract with them to serve it to children during lunch which in turn has caused many health issues among the students. In consideration to the health effects of food that has high cholesterol level which can cause obesity and diabetes, the consumer has the right to know all the ingredients or the nutritional facts related to the product which in turn the restaurant would not be liable for any health risk associated with the food they are selling to the consumer.

The outcome of this case varies for there are many parties involved and each one plays a different role. First, the case can be dismissed because of the parents’ ignorance and irresponsible for their children’s diet. Obesity and diabetes does not happen overnight but gradually, the parents should have monitored their children and be cautious at the first sign of obesity. They should have taken the measure at the time to speak up to the school regarding their children consumption and diet. The parents are aware of what was being served for lunch at school and they didn’t raise any concerns until a report of high cholesterol level was released. They have failed on their part to protect their children against obesity. Second, both the school and the restaurant are liable for the children’s health because the school signed the contract with the restaurant to serve such food to the children. The school is liable for serving unhealthy burgers for lunch known to have caused health issues among school age children. The restaurant is liable for the deceitful advertising of the burgers along with not providing nutritional facts to the consumer which in turn have caused many health issues. If the restaurant has presented itself with all the correct advertising along with listing all the ingredients and nutritional value of the product, they would have no responsibility as to what the children consume. Finally, the school can leave the blame all to the restaurant and cleared itself of any accusations. The school could have been misleading by the restaurant’s inaccurate advertising as well as the parents and all others consumers. Because of this, the school could not have been able to see that what they are serving to the children for lunch contains high level of cholesterol which leaves the school members to be blindsided just like the parents.

References:

1. Investopedia (2016) Federal Trade Commission (FTC). http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/ftc.asp
2. HG Legal Resource (2016) Consumer Rights-Consumers Law Protection. https://www.hg.org/consume.html
3. Van Thompson, Demand Media (2016) Laws Regarding False Advertisement of Fast Food. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/laws-regarding-false-advertising-fast-food-58515.html