Originally Posted by JohnP:
I'm curious. How hot is coffee normally served? I'm not an expert but I was under the impression that coffee from most places was hot enough to cause serious burns and the only thing that has changed at McDonalds is that now the cup has a warning label?

Not disagreeing ... just wondering since you have done a lot more investigation into this case than most people.

"Testimony showed that the coffee was heated to 180 to 190. At 180 degrees, liquids can cause burns to human skin in 2 to 7 seconds. Coffee served at home is generally 135 degrees. Many commercial establishements serve coffee in the range of 130 degrees to 140 degrees. A burn risk exists with any coffee over 140 degrees."

"McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk"

Further down on the page at this link - http://www.scarymommy.com/message-bo...ent-warning/p1 - is a picture of burned legs. Below that is a comment and a link to a very graphic picture of this woman's burns. They are horrible and I, for one, am disgusted that any establishment felt it was okay to sell something at a temperature that could cause that kind of damage (and they were aware of the risk). I think of my mother, who I lost a year ago at the age of 82, and how I would have felt if something like this had happened to her. Or a child. Or anyone, for that matter.

Originally Posted by MamaP:
While I may agree with many of your comments I do not agree with this one. Most people make a big deal out of the "coffee" lawsuit without knowing all the facts. I am sure most people would feel differently about this case if they knew the facts and/or if the 79 year old woman who had to spend 8 days in the hospital was someone they cared about. Here are just some of the facts that came out at trial:

• McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
• Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;
• Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
• The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
• McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
• From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
• Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;
• McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
• McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then required temperature;
• McDonald’s admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
• Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
• McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.

Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit. In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald’s behavior “callous.”

Plaintiff: The plaintiff was a 79 year old woman named Stella Liebeck.
Location: In 1992 Stella was riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by her grandson in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The Scene: Ms. Liebeck and her grandson pulled into a drive thru at a local McDonald’s Restaurant. After purchasing the coffee, the grandson pulled the car to a nearby curb and stopped the car so Ms Liebeck could add sugar and cream to her coffee. Stella was holding the cup between her legs. When she removed the lid from the cup it turned over and spilled into her lap.
Was the car stopped?
Fiction: I always hear “the car was moving” when Stella spilled the coffee. Not true!
Truth: The car was stopped.
Was Stella seriously injured?
Fiction: Stella only suffered minor injuries.
Truth: Stella suffered 3rd degree burns over 16% of her body. The burns were to her inner thighs, buttocks, perineum, and genital and groin area. The burns went as deep as her bone. She was wearing sweatpants which were literally burned into her skin.
Did Stella require hospitalization?
Fiction: Stella didn’t require hospitalization.
Truth: Stella was in the hospital for 8 days and underwent multiple debridement and skin-grafting surgeries.
Did Stella ever try to settle this for a lesser sum of money?
Fiction: Stella never tried to settle the case.
Truth: There was an early attempt to settle for the medical bills of approximately $11,000. Later Ms. Liebeck offered to settle for $90,000. McDonald’s generously offered $800.
Was the coffee too hot?
Myth: The coffee was not too hot
Truth: Testimony showed that the coffee was heated to 180 to 190. At 180 degrees, liquids can cause burns to human skin in 2 to 7 seconds. Coffee served at home is generally 135 degrees. Many commercial establishements serve coffee in the range of 130 degrees to 140 degrees. A burn risk exists with any coffee over 140 degrees.
Myth: McDonalds was not on notice that there coffee was causing burns
Truth: There was 700 other coffee burn cases that McDonald’s was aware of.
Myth: Stella received $2,700,000 in compensatory damages.
Truth: Actually Stella was only awarded $200,000 which was later reduced by the Judge to $160,000. The trial Judge reduced the $2,700,000 punitive damages to $480,000. Punitive damages were put in place to punish corporations for bad acts. Consequently the bulk of any punitive damage award in the State of New Mexico goes to the State of New Mexico.
Obviously, there is much more to this case than the “stigma” applied by insurance industry. The insurance industry has spent millions of dollars distorting this story to advance tort reform. Don’t buy the 30 second sound bites. Arm yourself with the facts.


Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Please take the time to look at the links below or do a google search for "facts" of the McDonald's Coffee Case.

http://www.brookslawgroup.com/blog/s...t-coffee-case/
http://www.citizen.org/hot-coffee
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-...ers-video.html
http://mentalfloss.com/article/26862...coffee-lawsuit

I have known from a young age that if spill l something hot on me it will probably burn, if it just came off the stove, it is hot.

Originally Posted by bargoo:
I have known from a young age that if spill l something hot on me it will probably burn, if it just came off the stove, it is hot.

Did you even bother to read the details? Everyone knows coffee is hot. What McDonald's was doing was serving their coffee at such a temperature to cause severe burns. McDonald's policy was to serve their coffee between 180 and 190 degrees - that's 50-60 degrees higher than the Shriner’s Burn Institute says is a safe temperature. Of course you expect coffee to be hot . . . you don't expect it to cause burns clear to the bone. Even McDonald's said the temperature of their coffee made it not fit for consumption when sold because it caused severe scalds if spilled or drunk.

Originally Posted by halo104:

On a side note, I kind of agree with the menu thing. Before I get flamed for it:

Going to a restaurant while dieting isn't hard. Diets and weight loss instill a certain sense of knowledge. Yeah, diets know a 16 oz steak can feed a village, so we don't get it. Either by intuition or set diet regulations we know to get the small 6 or 8 oz steak with a side of steamed broccoli and a small baked potato with onions, bacon bits, and no cheese. I don't think that seeing the 800 calorie and 25 g fat count next to the chicken alfredo will make much of a difference. If you're on a diet and REALLY want the alfredo, you know it's unhealthy and a cheat meal, so it won't make a bit of a difference. Restaurants are evil and unhealthy, so if it's really a big deal, avoid them!

That's why .

Regarding the calorie count on menus I was referring to this. I don't approach nutrition and weight loss like this at all. I need the calorie counts. Some people need them and some people don't. I have no problem ordering a 16oz steak if I know it fits into my daily intake or if I'm doing IF. Most of the time I have great leftovers, what's it to anyone?

And this is why there are labels saying irons are hot.

McDonalds (and every other fast food place) admitted to serving their coffee hotter than necessary to ensure that it stayed hot during a commute. Yes I have done research as well. And the lady was parked in her car holding her coffee between her legs. Her own admission.

Was the coffee scalding hot. Yes. Was mcdonalds in some way responsible. Yes. Was the lady who put hot coffee between her legs ultimately responsible or spilling her own coffee on her own lap. Yes.

For me....weight is the same. Yes, I may have a sensitivity to carbs, yes, I may be a good addict, yes, I may have depression or something that causes me to binge. But while these are all reasons, at the end if the day, i still make the conscious choice to put the food in my mouth, sit my butt on the couch and not work out. My choice, my problem, my consequences.

MY responsibility.

Originally Posted by MamaP:
"Many commercial establishements serve coffee in the range of 130 degrees to 140 degrees."

I'm not sure if that quote from the article is accurate. A bit of googling on the topic shows that coffee is served at quite a bit higher tempatures but it's all a bit confusing. My 10 minutes of googling makes it seem like industry standard from commercial places is 160-175 degrees which makes McDonald's at the time not significantly higher. All I know for sure coffee at Starbucks is way hotter than what I make at home.

Anyways ... way off topic. :D

Originally Posted by MamaP:
While I may agree with many of your comments I do not agree with this one. Most people make a big deal out of the "coffee" lawsuit without knowing all the facts. I am sure most people would feel differently about this case if they knew the facts and/or if the 79 year old woman who had to spend 8 days in the hospital was someone they cared about. Here are just some of the facts that came out at trial:

• McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
  
• Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;
  
• Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
  
• The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
  
• McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
  
• From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
  
• Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;
  
• McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
  
• McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then required temperature;
  
• McDonald’s admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
  
• Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
  
• McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.

Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit. In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald’s behavior “callous.”

Plaintiff: The plaintiff was a 79 year old woman named Stella Liebeck.
Location: In 1992 Stella was riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by her grandson in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The Scene: Ms. Liebeck and her grandson pulled into a drive thru at a local McDonald’s Restaurant. After purchasing the coffee, the grandson pulled the car to a nearby curb and stopped the car so Ms Liebeck could add sugar and cream to her coffee. Stella was holding the cup between her legs. When she removed the lid from the cup it turned over and spilled into her lap.
Was the car stopped?
Fiction: I always hear “the car was moving” when Stella spilled the coffee. Not true!
Truth: The car was stopped.
Was Stella seriously injured?
Fiction: Stella only suffered minor injuries.
Truth: Stella suffered 3rd degree burns over 16% of her body. The burns were to her inner thighs, buttocks, perineum, and genital and groin area. The burns went as deep as her bone. She was wearing sweatpants which were literally burned into her skin.
Did Stella require hospitalization?
Fiction: Stella didn’t require hospitalization.
Truth: Stella was in the hospital for 8 days and underwent multiple debridement and skin-grafting surgeries.
Did Stella ever try to settle this for a lesser sum of money?
Fiction: Stella never tried to settle the case.
Truth: There was an early attempt to settle for the medical bills of approximately $11,000. Later Ms. Liebeck offered to settle for $90,000. McDonald’s generously offered $800.
Was the coffee too hot?
Myth: The coffee was not too hot
Truth: Testimony showed that the coffee was heated to 180 to 190. At 180 degrees, liquids can cause burns to human skin in 2 to 7 seconds. Coffee served at home is generally 135 degrees. Many commercial establishements serve coffee in the range of 130 degrees to 140 degrees. A burn risk exists with any coffee over 140 degrees.
Myth: McDonalds was not on notice that there coffee was causing burns
Truth: There was 700 other coffee burn cases that McDonald’s was aware of.
Myth: Stella received $2,700,000 in compensatory damages.
Truth: Actually Stella was only awarded $200,000 which was later reduced by the Judge to $160,000. The trial Judge reduced the $2,700,000 punitive damages to $480,000. Punitive damages were put in place to punish corporations for bad acts. Consequently the bulk of any punitive damage award in the State of New Mexico goes to the State of New Mexico.
Obviously, there is much more to this case than the “stigma” applied by insurance industry. The insurance industry has spent millions of dollars distorting this story to advance tort reform. Don’t buy the 30 second sound bites. Arm yourself with the facts.


Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Please take the time to look at the links below or do a google search for "facts" of the McDonald's Coffee Case.

http://www.brookslawgroup.com/blog/s...t-coffee-case/
http://www.citizen.org/hot-coffee
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-...ers-video.html
http://mentalfloss.com/article/26862...coffee-lawsuit

Just as an FYI, this was a case we studied in college. So I am familiar. But....

Coffee. Is. Hot.


Any two year old who has grabbed their parents coffee cup knows that.

We are regulating ourselves stupid and irresponsible. Our kids are learning about food and choices by watching the adults point the blame finger at everyone else.

Everyone has an addiction, everyone has an illness. Everyone has a reason for their bad choices. Guess what. I have an addiction, it's called putting food in face.

I know that sounds harsh and I know that it's not that black and white. But really,honestly let's think about this. We are the fattest nation in the world. And the richest.

We spend time eating crap, sitting on our butts, driving down the block to starbucks, and demanding instant gratification

If all of these "sensitivities" and "disorders" were for real, why are they just now manifesting themselves?

Because fat and excuses and self help gurus are big bucks!

Again, I can only speak for myself. I am fat, because I eat. I eat my feelings, good or bad. It's nobodies fault. It's choices I have made.

That being said. I like the calories on menus and nutritional information on packages. I just happen to not think that its a resturaunts fault I am fat, nor their responsibility to tell me that pizza is full of stuff I shouldn't be eating a lot of.

And yes. When I get to goal, and I work my butt off everyday to stay in shape, darn right I am going to be proud (some would say elitist) about it. Anyone who loses weight , kicks an addiction, graduates or does anything that takes dedication and work deserves to be proud of their accomplishment. Not going to apologize for it. And not going to beat people up for their choices, as long as they take the control and the power..and own their choices.

I love me some calorie counts on restaurant menus. While it's true that people can be surprised that certain meals contain more calories than expected, it can also be true that there are meals containing fewer calories than expected. A beef burger with a salad (dressing on the side) is a very reasonable meal. I have found that rather than limit my choices, the nutritional information provided allows me to experiment more than I normally would.

I think the calorie counts irritate some people the way that having vegetarian or vegan or gluten-free items can irritate them. Maybe they feel they are being judged if they order a high-calorie, animal-killin' dish?

Or they question whether it actually helps people. But rather than admit they're wrong when someone (like me!) says it is helpful, they just say that "society is lazy" or "people need to accept responsibility", blah, blah.

While going up and down the scale (down at the moment), I have come to realize that my intelligence, motivation and personality are not tied to the number on the scale. I am not more motivated to lose/maintain weight now just because I'm in maintenance mode. I am not less likely to initiate a "frivolous" lawsuit because I lost a lot of weight.

Originally Posted by lazylioness:
I know that sounds harsh and I know that it's not that black and white. But really,honestly let's think about this. We are the fattest nation in the world. And the richest.

We spend time eating crap, sitting on our butts, driving down the block to starbucks, and demanding instant gratification

If all of these "sensitivities" and "disorders" were for real, why are they just now manifesting themselves?

Because fat and excuses and self help gurus are big bucks!

Again, I can only speak for myself. I am fat, because I eat. I eat my feelings, good or bad. It's nobodies fault. It's choices I have made.
.

You sound just like that acquaintance of mine. And just as angry. I don't know why there is so much anger directed towards people who are suffering. It's not like we hurt others with our eating disorders. Out addictions don't cause us to get behind a wheel drunk, or gamble away our family's savings. You don't need to tell me that I'm in control of my own destiny, I've spent decades if my life hating myself for my weaknesses and feeling hopeless. Your attitude is rather sad, I do hope you achieve your goals. For me, I finally realized that the processed foods I was eating were creating hormonal and chemical changes in my body and that's not entirely my fault. Come on, you said it yourself, we're the fattest nation on the planet. Do you honestly believe that the basis of American principals have changed so much in the last 40 yrs that all Americans just all of a sudden became lazy slobs without good reason? At best that's a far fetched idea and the most cynical. There's a reason things happen.

Originally Posted by diamondgeog:
I am EQUALLY tired of people just blaming individuals. Society and businesses and government share A LOT of the blame. From overplaying fat to downplaying carbs IMHO.

I have seen other posts by you on this topic and they make my day! :carrot: Seriously! I think maybe the reason that the vast majority of the people here don't agree with this is that it comes very naturally to fat people to hate and blame themselves. Never mind that they were addicted to crap food for many years before they even knew their was a problem, and probably long before the age of majority, never mind that those foods were engineered to make them addicted, never mind that they were told over and over to avoid the foods that were good for them and would help them reverse some of the damage and to focus their attention on eating those "healthy" (wheat thins!) foods that would just dig them in deeper, never mind that it is 100 times easier to find and pay for food that is going to make them worse off. They are fat and they are to blame and if they point any of that out they aren't taking personal responsibility. The whole thing makes me want to vomit. But thank you, diamondgeog! I feel a bit better to know that you are out there. :)

And MamaP, very interesting about that case! I didn't know the details. Sorry the personal responsibility mantra reared it's ugly head in response. I for one am amazed that McD's would purposely do that. Ugh.

Originally Posted by lazylioness:
For me....weight is the same. Yes, I may have a sensitivity to carbs, yes, I may be a good addict, yes, I may have depression or something that causes me to binge. But while these are all reasons, at the end if the day, i still make the conscious choice to put the food in my mouth, sit my butt on the couch and not work out. My choice, my problem, my consequences.

MY responsibility.

This ^^^

I think people are all making great points, I have come across this attitude a lot lately too Wannabeskinny.

We are all in control of our own lives and choices, yes.
If we make excuses for ourselves, then we have no one else to blame but ourselves, yes.

BUT. My life, my choices, my problems. My fatness is not an invitation for every Tom, Dick and Harry to take one look at my body and say "We'll you're an average fat American. You must be lazy and don't care about yourself enough to take care of this problem! Look at me, I don't eat snacks and I work out twice a week and I'm fit. The problem is people don't want to bother with giving up their goodies and getting off the couch."

While some of that may be true, weight is so much more complex than that. What irks me is people make it sound like it's SO EASY, and we must be idiots for not figuring out how to take the weight off. We are all here to tackle our own demons, our own inner voices that tell us to eat that extra treat, or not exercise until tomorrow. And they all manifest from different places, and we all deal with it differently. Some of us take a no nonsense attitude of "This is my responsibility, and my fault I'm this size so I'm going to do something about it!" ...and that's truly great. I really think people should be strong mentally to lose weight. BUT that's not how we all deal with this. I personally feel yes I'm gonna own up that my diet and lack of exercise have contributed to my weight, but there are other things. My family is fat. All of them. Genetically I pack on weight fast and keep it. Culturally I was brought up to never 'waste food'. Clean off your plate, don't leave food behind because when we waste food we waste what little money we have. These might sound like "excuses" to people, but this is stuff I didn't have control of... genetics I'll never have control of. I have had to learn to accept that my body has a predisposition to being fat. I have to work 10x as harder as my naturally skinny friends to be their size... and even then I'll probably always carry some weight on me. That's ok, I've come to accept that some things I can't control but I can learn to cope with them. Yes, I make a conscious effort what goes into my mouth... but the behaviors of putting things into my mouth need to re-wired. It's a battle, that's 26 years of bad habits to break, and new habits to form. I'm not saying woe is me, pity me. I'm saying, save me your analyzing of why I'm fat. I don't need anyone fat or skinny telling me what I need to do to lose weight, or what kind of person I must be because I'm fat. Especially when those people don't know the first thing about what it's like to be born and raised fat.

TLDR; Quit passing judgement on individuals based on a limited understanding you have of group of people. Show some empathy, and realize just because something works for you doesn't mean it's the solution to everyone's problem.

Originally Posted by Wannabeskinny:
I just had a discussion with someone who "is tired of hearing about eating disorders" and thinks that fat people want to be fat and that if they didn't want to be fat they would do something about it. It has gotten me so angry! I know people that are naturally thin think this way but I'm sure they don't say it out loud most of the time. According to her, eating disorders (specifically BED) is a made up thing that people use as an excuse to overeat. She claims that it is really hard for her to maintain her 115lb weight and that she has to give up on a lot of treats, but that fat people don't want to be bothered with the hard work she does to maintain her weight. She also thinks that calorie counts showing up on menus is really stupid because she "doesn't need someone to tell her that a 16oz steak is enough food to feed 4 people!"

I'm seething right now :tantrum::tantrum::tantrum:

Wannabe, that whole situation just sucks. I have minimal patience at times and would have like given her some choice words. I think a couple of people have mentioned that she's likely projecting her own insecurities/frustration/etc on "fat people". Maybe she's jealous we got to eat more then she does? :D Hope you've shaken it off- you got plenty of support here :)

Side note, everyone's input here has been awesome to read.

OK, at the risk of having tomatoes pelted at me, I'll jump in and share some of my thoughts on this topic.

On the one hand I believe that weight management is not a level playing field. Differences in physiology aside, some of us like food a lot more than others, find it comfortable rather than unpleasant to have a very full stomach, and are inclined to turn to food for comfort and stress relief. For such people (raising hand), weight loss and maintenance are undoubtedly harder than for people who are disinterested or picky eaters and dislike the feeling of fullness. It takes more willpower for us to lose weight than it takes for the non-foodies.

On the other hand, I do not put eating disorders in the same category as physiologic conditions like MS or rheumatoid arthritis. No matter how much we're drawn to food, no matter how difficult we find it to resist, we CAN make the choice to walk away. I see eating disorders as ingrained behavioral patterns that exist in a cultural context, rather than fixed neurologic impairments. Our culture chooses to define compulsive binging as a disease. Another culture might define it as a moral failing. Both views have partial validity, IMO.

It's not fashionable to speak of willpower these days. Instead, we talk about how our neurotransmitters (or low leptin levels or high ghrelin levels) made us do it. I come back to my earlier point: we may have leptin or ghrelin or a difficult childhood working against us, but we still have a choice -- and I say this as someone who's made the "wrong" choice on countless occasions, including today.

To me, it's much more comforting to think I lack willpower than to think I have a disease. After all, willpower can improve with practice.

Freelance

First of all, I'm sorry to say that part of me agrees with your friend. I've been working at losing weight continually for nearly two years now and I'm getting sick and tired of thinking in terms of eating disorders and thinking about food and exercise all the time. It's like having a second full time job! Also, I think overweight people (barring medical factors)will stay overweight until they really do want to change as you need to have that motivation to achieve weight loss. I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to say although maybe hard to hear - how many threads have we had here on what your 'final push' to really start losing weight was?

However, it sounds to me like your friend is almost jealous and maybe feeling a little smug. It sounds like 'Hey, those people with eating disorders have an excuse for losing weight/binge eating with no effort whereas *I* have no such excuse *I* just work really hard'. I don't agree with that line of thinking at all but I can see (from the perspective of trying to lose weight) how when you are so mired in thinking about your own eating/exercise you lose sight of what is 'normal' for everyone else and things that are 'challenges' for others seem easy to you. I think your friend does not appreciate the level of work involved in dealing with ed or losing weight at the moment. I wonder if maybe your friend had an eating disorder or a weight problem at some point and is now in denial due to being in a better place physically?

Originally Posted by diamondgeog:
Britain suggested a red, yellow, green system for foods. If a food product met all of some guidelines it would be a green.

They did studies. The system was SUPER effective. SUPER. Consumers LOVED it. But the food companies got it stopped precisely because it was so effective. Instead of trying to make more and more products that would get a green label they just stopped it.

So yeah, it isn't just individuals.

I just wanted to say that the above isn't true. The traffic light system is definitely still in operation here in the UK. Its not on all food products but I don't think it had ever been. I must admit to finding it useful when I'm in a rush, that I just glance at the 'fat' and 'salt' reading and if I see Green circles (green=good) I'll just buy something without reading much further :o I can post photos if you want to see it in action. Sorry for the derailment!