Unhealthy Lunches: Business Law - Essay Example

Consumers Protection Laws Consumers Protection Laws Leisure time in the modern world has become more important than the time spentpreparing meals. People who do not have the will, the ability or time to cook prefer buying fast food from restaurants. Although this fast food restaurant is becoming more convenient, it is important for people to consider home cooked meals. In addition to this, fast food is believed to have ingredients that affect human health negatively. According to Federal Trade Commission, fast foods contain large amounts of fats.

Large accumulation of the fat in the body leads to overweight and eventually obesity. It also lays ground for other chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis (Griggs, Webb& Freilich, 2008). The case George vs. Mary and Drive-In Don’s vs. school is simply an example of the effects of fast food on consumers’ health. Before one determines whether Mary and George have a case, he must consider their legal arguments. In addition to this, one has to analyze the defense put forward by the defendants.

It is also important to consider the role of Federal Trade Commission because they are mandated to protect the consumers through regulating restaurants that deal in fast foods (Griggs, Webb& Freilich, 2008). Part 1 George and Mary have a case against the defendants because the law requires schools to make better nutrition standards for lunch programs. In addition to this, the law prohibits selling of unhealthy fast foods in schools. Furthermore, a law suit can be filed against any school boards that allow soft-drink companies and fast food restaurants to have exclusive vending rights in the schools (Griggs, Webb& Freilich, 2008).

Despite this law, the school allowed fast-food restaurant to sell foods in their premises as long as they pay for that space. The school uses that cash to fund other programs within the school. In the case of George and Mary, one has to verify if the Drive-In Don’s provided the nutrition information for the food they sell. Drive-In Don’s has to take responsibility for the food they sell to consumers. If the food has side effects, the organization must be charged to serve as an example to other companies that do the same.

The school also has a case to answer because they should ensure their students get nutritious lunch. In addition to this, they allowed the Drive-In Don’s to sell products to pupils while they were fully aware the fast foods can enhance the development of obesity among other chronic diseases. Lastly, Drive-In Don’s has to be stopped completely from selling its products within the school premises as provided by the law (Cseres, 2009). Part 2 The school and the restaurant have strong defense against the complainants.

First, there is no law that compels the restaurants to disclose to its customers the ingredients used to make their food before selling to them. In addition to this, according to National School Lunch Program, restaurants are allowed to sell food in schools during meal times as long as the food is healthy. It is important to note that NSLP has banned the following type of food soda water, water ices, hard candy, marshmallow candy and others that have minimal nutritional value. A keen observer would realize that fast foods from Drive-In Don’s are not in the list of prohibited food.

From the above explanation, it is clear that the restaurant and the school did not break any law when they collaborated to sell fast food in school (Cseres, 2009). After exonerating the school and the restaurant against accusations that they sold fast food illegally to students, it is crucial to consider their liability in selling food that has side effects. One important factor to note is that there is no law in the country that prohibits one from selling fast foods. It therefore means the issues of obesity are caused by the inability of consumers to regulate the amount of food they consume.

This places any health issue entirely in the hands of consumers. It is the consumers’ personal choice and responsibility to regulate the amount of food they consume. In addition to this, George and Marry must consider their children unhealthy behavior like extensive television viewing and inability to exercise can also lead to obesity. The plaintiffs have also not proved that the obesity among the children was not caused by genetic factors or environmental issues (FTC, 2007). Part 3 Federal Trade Commission is an independent federal agency which is charged with the responsibility of protecting consumers by establishing a variety of consumer protection laws.

The laws protect the consumers from harmful products. The agency also deals with any complaints filed regarding unethical business practices. It also reviews complaints to establish if any business engages in illegal activities. In the law suit above, the organization can undertake an investigation to determine if the restaurants sold unhealthy food. The agency would then present its finding in court. The FDA can take the sample of the fast food and analyze it in its laboratory to determine whether it is harmful or not (Kaebnick, Knowles & Project, 2007).

In case the analysis proves that the restaurant sells unhealthy food, it would then present its evidence in court. The court would then use the evidence to determine if the restaurant has any case to answer (Kaebnick, Knowles & Project, 2007). It is important to note that the agency may not be of much help to the plaintiff. This is because their role is to regulate the health standards of goods sold to consumers and note to presents complainants in law courts. Conclusion It is evident that the restaurant sells fast food that is linked to development of obesity.

In addition to this, the school allows the restaurant to sell goods in school which are prohibited by the law. George and Mary have a good case against the school and the restaurant. On the other side, the responsibility of protecting ones health lies squarely on the consumers. It is upon the consumers to ensure that they consume healthy food. In addition, consumers must understand that, they cannot sue their way out of unhealthy eating habits. Lastly, FDA and FTC among other agencies do not direct court case.

The complainants should not expect the agency to help them argue their case. References Cseres, K. J. (2009). Competition law and consumer protection. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. FTC., & United States. (2007). Improving health care: A dose of competition. Washington, DC: U.S. Griggs, L., Webb, E., & Freilich, A. Y. M. (2008). Consumer protection law. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Publication. Kaebnick, G. E., Knowles, L. P., & Project Muse. (2007). Reprogenetics: Law, policy, and ethical issues.

Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.