Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:52:55.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

New Developments in Public Health Case Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Extract

In recent years, public health law has seen some important court decisions. Those are presented below.

In Pelman v. McDonaldS Corporation, the court dismissed a complaint filed by three children who claimed that McDonald’s practices in making and selling its products were deceptive. This deception, the children alleged, caused them to consume McDonald’s products with great frequency and become obese, thereby injuring their health. The plaintiffs pled five causes of action against McDonald’s, alleging that McDonald’s: 1) failed to adequately disclose the ingredients and health effects of its products and described their food as nutritious without disclosing detrimental health effects; 2) engaged in marketing techniques geared toward inducing children to consume their products; 3) acted negligently in selling foods high in fat, cholesterol, salt, and sugar when studies show that foods containing these ingredients cause obesity and detrimental health effects; 4) failed to warn consumers of the quantity and qualities of levels of fat, cholesterol, salt, and sugar in its products or of the detrimental health effects of such foods; and 5) acted negligently in marketing foods that were physically and psychologically addictive.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 237 F.Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).Google Scholar
Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, 2001 R.I. Super. LEXIS 37 (2001).Google Scholar
Philip Morris v. Reilly, 312 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2002).Google Scholar
Souvannarath v. Hadden, 95 Cal. App. 4th 1115 (2002).Google Scholar