# Nutella isn't Health Food? You Gotta Be Kidding Me ....



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I'm shocked. I'm stunned. There are no words.

A Mom Sues Nutella Maker For Deceptive Advertising


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Lots of things are marketed as healthy or nutritious when that's a spurious statement at best.  Doesn't this person feel she has any responsibility to read labels?


----------



## tsilver (Aug 9, 2010)

Oh my word!  Why am I eating it?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I have no words. 

I grew up with it, no german household is without Nutella. At least none I ever came across.  Nothing like it on some crusty bavarian farmers bread  

I still eat it today, on rye especially. 

What happened to common sense though. Really? To sue for being incapable of reading labels? To know that an item whose first 2 ingredients are Sugar, Palm oil and Hazelnuts might not be the healthiest item in the food pyramid? 

Are those the same people that suck down gallons of soda each day?


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

Because it is really good! If you eat it on whole grain bread it can add to your fiber count and be desert


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Is that the same kind of logic where a Diet Coke cancels out a Milky Way?


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

Not cancel out, just working together


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

LauraB said:


> Because it is really good! If you eat it on whole grain bread it can add to your fiber count and be desert


I like your logic!


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

Anything with "partially hydrogenated" in the ingredients isn't healthy. I like Nutella but won't buy it any more because of that.


----------



## Jennybeanses (Jan 27, 2011)

But it's Nutella. *drools*


----------



## Marguerite (Jan 18, 2009)

I think that this falls into the category of that woman who sued McDonald's because the coffee that she drove with between her legs was actually hot.  OMG coffee hot? WHo knew.  How about those people in San Francisco that outlawed toys in fast food kid meals because they didn't want to be the ones to say no to their kids when they wanted more fast food because of  the toys?  Crazy world we live in.


----------



## BMathison (Feb 4, 2011)

I know a lot of German friends who have Nutella in the pantries as a staple.  Seriously, nutella sandwiches for the kids every day for school.  Yikes!   There's so many nutritious options in the stores now.  We've become label-readers, and go for the natural stuff.  Except for once in a while, when you just have to have a donut or something.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

While I would agree that I don't feel particularly sorry for any reasonably intelligent, literate person who falls for misleading advertising, I have less sympathy for any company that practices such advertising. Let's face it, statistically, approximately 50% of the population of the world has an IQ below 100, and many of them are functionally or totally illiterate. I am more concerned about protecting them from predatory advertising than I am someone who "should know better" -- and I have no idea where the woman in this suit falls in the range of intelligence/literacy/whatever. And for that matter, there are a lot of otherwise intelligent people who will believe the most amazing things because someone said them on TV. If it turns out Nutella was, in fact, intentionally trying to portray their product as nutritious when they actually knew it was not, frankly I think they deserve to be punished. Caveat: this is all hypothetical on my part as I have absolutely no idea what the facts are in this case.

And don't get me started on all the products out there claiming to be good for you because they are "natural", "organic", "holistic" or whatever without having a shred of reputable, peer-reviewed evidence to prove it. (After all, cobra venom harvested from a free-range snake is "natural" and "organic", but I'm not going to eat/drink it.)

And you really, really don't want to get me started on things like that iRenew bracelet.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

terryr said:


> Anything with "partially hydrogenated" in the ingredients isn't healthy. I like Nutella but won't buy it any more because of that.


But it's only partially hydrogenated, not completely. That means the part that isn't hydrogenated is good for you. Or something like that.


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

Arggghhh

Sorry but this is ridiculous.

EVERY company out there market's it's food as 'healthy' (or at least not bad for you).

McD's? Yep
Sunny Delight - you betcha

I mean come on it's chocolate spread. That's right, a spread made from chocolate. I don't care what your IQ level is, how can anybody think that putting chocolate on bread is healthy?

(Don't get me wrong, I adore Nutella, but I know it's not good for me, in the same way that I know McD's isn't good for me, even if I have a Diet Coke with my Supersized meal).


----------



## arshield (Nov 17, 2008)

Marguerite said:


> I think that this falls into the category of that woman who sued McDonald's because the coffee that she drove with between her legs was actually hot. OMG coffee hot? WHo knew.


The McDonald's thing, while still a stupid lawsuit, was about the fact that McDonalds was superheating their coffee to cover up the fact that it was lousy coffee. After the lawsuit, they stopped superheating the coffee and actually bought better coffee. Of course the price of the coffee went up, but with the advent of Starbucks that is not a marketing point.


----------



## MrPLD (Sep 23, 2010)

It's amazing how hard it is now to find food that isn't adulterated in some bizzare way.  Spent a good 20 minutes going through the muslie bar section looking for something that didn't have preservatives/additives/colourings etc - finally found one, it was more expensive but at least I could eat it ( to be fair, I should just make my own ).    Breakfast cereals are obvious just as bad, even the "healthy" ones.

What's scary (at least I found) is that after you've finally purged your eating of the bulk of these E-number* additives, as soon as you eat something with them in there you'll find yourself frequently feeling less than great.

(* Not all E-number additives are actually bad, but you really want to study them and know which ones are acceptable!).


----------



## tsilver (Aug 9, 2010)

Riddler:  The chocolateers are claiming that chocolate is good for you--at least dark chocolate.  I believe, I believe, I believe !!!!


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Marguerite said:


> I think that this falls into the category of that woman who sued McDonald's because the coffee that she drove with between her legs was actually hot. OMG coffee hot? WHo knew.


Just a clarification, it wasn't just hot, it was far too hot. She received 2nd and 3rd degree burns to her lap requiring surgery and grafting. McD's knew it was too hot, as per memos that had floated around, but they chose NOT to lower the temp on their coffee machines. And she was the passenger iirc, she was in her 80s or 90s.


----------



## HappyGuy (Nov 3, 2008)

Call me cynical, but it sounds to me like someone is hoping to sue and get rich without having to work.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

As far as the woman knowing better, you'd be surprised. In one of my university nutrition classes, we were talking about a person's daily need for water, and a girl actually raised her hand and asked what happens if the person only drinks juice or soda -- how does he meet his water requirement?

Common sense, people, common sense.

I agree with Nogdog about the topic of misleading advertising, though. This is apparently an ongoing problem with Nutella: Nutella ad banned over health claims (Feb 28, 200, The "New" Nutella - A Nutritious Spread? [Inside the Label] (Oct 11, 2009)


----------



## MrPLD (Sep 23, 2010)

HappyGuy said:


> Call me cynical, but it sounds to me like someone is hoping to sue and get rich without having to work.


The great dream


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

Marguerite said:


> I think that this falls into the category of that woman who sued McDonald's because the coffee that she drove with between her legs was actually hot. OMG coffee hot? WHo knew. How about those people in San Francisco that outlawed toys in fast food kid meals because they didn't want to be the ones to say no to their kids when they wanted more fast food because of the toys? Crazy world we live in.


The women in question suffered third degree burns because McDonalds kept their coffee at a dangerously hot temperature. McDonalds knew of the problem, they had settled over 700 similar cases. McDonalds did what many comapnies do, they decided that the amount of money paid out in the occassional settlement was less expensive then changing a practice that they knew was dangerous.

There are some lawsuits that sound like they are frivoulous but really are not.

This one sounds really stupid though.

From Wikipedia:

"[edit] Burn incidentOn February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Stella placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds.[13] Two years of medical treatment followed.

[edit] Settlement offersLiebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.[14] Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000.[5] Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.[5]

[edit] Trial and verdictThe trial took place from August 8-17, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott.[15] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 °F (82-88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald's served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.[16]) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[5] However, this contradicts the company's own research that showed customers actually intend to consume the coffee while driving to their destination.[17]

*Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[5] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[18]*

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[15] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[5] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[19]"


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

HappyGuy said:


> Call me cynical, but it sounds to me like someone is hoping to sue and get rich without having to work.


The fact that someone may want to sue mainly in order to get rich quick does not in and of itself negate the legitimacy (or illegtimacy) of the suit or make the plaintiff automatically not guilty.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

tsilver said:


> Riddler: The chocolateers are claiming that chocolate is good for you--at least dark chocolate. I believe, I believe, I believe !!!!


Cocoa that is unsweetened and with no fats added has some good things going for it. Unfortunately, 99.9999% (or so) of cocoa consumption in the US is as chocolate with lots of sugar and fat, whose negative effects probably outweigh (no pun intended) those good things in the cocoa bean.


----------



## Sandpiper (Oct 28, 2008)

I hope she wins.  I don't usually pay much attention to ads on TV -- they just go by.  But I did take note of the Nutella ads.  I happened to have a jar in the cabinet.  Looked at the label.  Geeeez.  Nutricious!!!!!!!!  NOT.  So I go to the web site to call or e-mail.  Ingredients are NOT on the web site.  Only way to contact Ferrero is via snail mail -- no phone number or e-mail addie given.

I hope she wins!


----------



## Alle Meine Entchen (Dec 6, 2009)

nutella is really gross, I'm just saying. . .


----------



## Kia Zi Shiru (Feb 7, 2011)

NogDog said:


> Cocoa that is unsweetened and with no fats added has some good things going for it. Unfortunately, 99.9999% (or so) of cocoa consumption in the US is as chocolate with lots of sugar and fat, whose negative effects probably outweigh (no pun intended) those good things in the cocoa bean.


the stuff that is called "chocolate" in the USA is far from what is allowed to be called chocolate in the Netherlands...
in the Netherlands you have to have a certain amount of real cocoa bean substance in it to be called chocolate.
otherwise they can only call it cacao-fantasy... yes FANTASY...


----------



## 💯 (Jan 23, 2011)

I eat nutella with a spoon. lol.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Thats the best way


----------



## Thumper (Feb 26, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> Is that the same kind of logic where a Diet Coke cancels out a Milky Way?


But...but...they _do_...


----------



## John Dax (May 21, 2010)

Jennybeanses said:


> But it's Nutella. *drools*


This. On crepes. Not the drool, just the Nutella.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

JohnDax said:


> This. On crepes. Not the drool, just the Nutella.


Yessss, with bananas and cool whip. Or maybe that's just me.


----------



## Neo (Mar 30, 2009)

Jessica Billings said:


> Yessss, with bananas and cool whip. Or maybe that's just me.


No, it's not just you !!!! Although I'm not a cool whip fan, but count me in for the Nutella and bananas on crepes


----------



## Marguerite (Jan 18, 2009)

Ok Ok, I stand corrected on the McD lawsuit. Gotta get more facts before I post right?


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Marguerite said:


> Ok Ok, I stand corrected on the McD lawsuit. Gotta get more facts before I post right?


It's not just you Marguerite. Alot of people just heard the basics and run with the "omg Coffee is HOT?" thing because they think they wouldn't possibly be that dumb. When in reality, it was MUCH worse than they heard.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

I have not looked at the label of nor bought Nutella, but the commercials do imply that it is healthy, and that it is a valid option to give your kids for breakfast. While it is true that everyone should read the labels of what they eat, I do not think companies should be allowed to imply blatant lies such as this.


----------



## Sandpiper (Oct 28, 2008)

Nutella ingredients:  sugar, modified palm oil, hazelnuts, cocoa, skim milk, reduced minerals whey (from milk), soy lecithin: an emulsifier, vanillin: an artificial flavor.

Serving size: 2 tbsps.; Calories 190; Fat Calories 100

Total fat 11g.; Sat Fat 3.5g.; Trans Fat 0g.; Cholesterol 0mg.; Sodium 15mg.; Total Carb 22g.; Protein 3g.


----------



## a.m.harte (Jan 30, 2011)

I grew up on Nutella (as part of my healthy Italian diet) and I'm fine! :-D


----------



## Neo (Mar 30, 2009)

a.m.harte said:


> I grew up on Nutella (as part of my healthy Italian diet) and I'm fine! :-D


You know, I was thinking the exact same thing (well, except for the Italian part, as I'm not Italian, lol) ! 

Interestingly enough, I've only had to think about/manage my weight since I came to the US - where I've learned to read EVERYTHING on the labels before putting it in my mouth


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Neo said:


> You know, I was thinking the exact same thing (well, except for the Italian part, as I'm not Italian, lol) !
> 
> Interestingly enough, I've only had to think about/manage my weight since I came to the US - where I've learned to read EVERYTHING on the labels before putting it in my mouth


That is funny, same thing here. Not so much that I have to manage, I never been above a still perfectly fine weight, but I did gain 20 lbs after moving to the US from germany after the first few years. I was always a bit underweight around 100 lbs. That is with eating nutella each morning lol. 
There the big meal is for lunch, not dinner. I think that alone made a big difference. Also more processed food stuff I think. 
I guess I adjusted my eating to go along with hubby and friends and work. 
Very different from what I was used to.

I still don't drink Soda, only rarely and I still don't like sweet cold tea so I guess that helps lol.

When you read the Nutella ingredients they aren't really that bad. No cholesterol and 2 TB go quite far if you spread it on some nice rustic whole wheat bread. You are suppose to treat it as a meal, not as an addition to something else to add even more calories.


----------



## MrPLD (Sep 23, 2010)

What shocked me recently was when looking for an -alternative- to Nutella, we found that the "generic brand" one in the shop actually was better for you (lack of preservatives, no modified oils etc)... thankfully the taste was good too   (though I don't personally eat much of it, I'm more of a salad, pasta,  rye bread person)


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

I put nutella in the same category as peanut butter. Pretty fatty, tastes good, some healthy bits, alright in moderation.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

s0nicfreak said:


> I have not looked at the label of nor bought Nutella, but the commercials do imply that it is healthy, and that it is a valid option to give your kids for breakfast. While it is true that everyone should read the labels of what they eat, I do not think companies should be allowed to imply blatant lies such as this.


I just watched the commercial and it said it was made with natural ingredients, had no preservatives and a tasty part of breakfast .... they didn't actually lie ... But then if Cheerios and Frosted Flakes can present themselves as healthy, why not everyone?


----------



## Marguerite (Jan 18, 2009)

We, as a country, have found ourselves significantly fatter since we went the low/non-fat route.  Smaller portions of every food group are what we need


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

All of this talk of Nutella on this and another thread . . . I may have to buy a jar next time I'm at the food store.  I've been tempted before.  Sounds like something that is addictive.


----------



## patrisha w. (Oct 28, 2008)

Alle Meine Entchen said:


> nutella is really gross, I'm just saying. . .


 I agree. Too sweet and a nasty after-taste.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2011)

Jessica Billings said:


> Yessss, with bananas and cool whip. Or maybe that's just me.


I love Cool Whip but only use it during the holidays. It's really bad for you. All it is is whipped coconut oil with sugar. The filling in Oreos is similar. It's whipped shortening (like the Crisco in a can stuff) and sugar. Tasty but very fat laden. I don't eat them anymore.

I stopped eating McNuggets too when I found out they contain ground up chicken feathers. I think if we all knew what was in all the foods we love we'd all starve to death! LOL


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

NYCKindleFan said:


> I love Cool Whip but only use it during the holidays.


Yup, same here. I had some leftover from Thanksgiving, so I was trying to figure out how to use it. Ended up spreading it on tortillas with the nutella and bananas. Incredibly delicious, but oh so terrible for me.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Sandpiper said:


> Nutella ingredients: sugar, modified palm oil, hazelnuts, cocoa, skim milk, reduced minerals whey (from milk), soy lecithin: an emulsifier, vanillin: an artificial flavor.
> 
> Serving size: 2 tbsps.; Calories 190; Fat Calories 100
> 
> Total fat 11g.; Sat Fat 3.5g.; Trans Fat 0g.; Cholesterol 0mg.; Sodium 15mg.; Total Carb 22g.; Protein 3g.


Funny, that's about the same number of calories as two Pop Tarts or a Lean Cuisine meal, I think...



Marguerite said:


> We, as a country, have found ourselves significantly fatter since we went the low/non-fat route. Smaller portions of every food group are what we need


What the public doesn't realize is that the fat is usually replaced with sugars and artificial flavor enhancers. My favorite is when marshmallows are advertised as low-fat...

I suddenly feel like buying my own jar of Nutella, thanks to this thread.


----------



## sem (Oct 27, 2008)

Alice Y. Yeh: I have had the same reaction. I haven't had Nutella for years but I bet I buy a jar the next time I'm at the store. It isn't on my list but I know me ... I will just happen upon it and say "Aha!".


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

arshield said:


> The McDonald's thing, while still a stupid lawsuit, was about the fact that McDonalds was superheating their coffee to cover up the fact that it was lousy coffee. After the lawsuit, they stopped superheating the coffee and actually bought better coffee. Of course the price of the coffee went up, but with the advent of Starbucks that is not a marketing point.


I might have sued too considering that the elderly woman suffered _third-degree burns_ and was in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafts, during which time she lost 20% of her body weight. (And let's point out these burns were on her crotch) She had to undergo two years of medical treatment afterward.

Moreover, her attorneys made repeated attempts to get McDonald's to settle by paying her hospital bills, which they refused to do. McDonald's was proven to have received hundreds of complaints about the extreme, dangerous temperature of their coffee prior to this incident.

I have no sympathy with McDonald's, although I give them that they did one hell of a good PR job in blaming the victim in the case. If they'd just acted reasonably in paying her hospital bills they would have saved themselves a lot of grief, but probably they ended up getting business from it in the end from all the publicity.

Edit: Nutella. I love the stuff but don't usually eat it because of the hydrogenation problem. But occasionally--on toast with a cup of tea for breakfast. Yum. (Except I can't eat the toast because it has gluten! Life sux)


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I might have sued too considering that the elderly woman suffered _third-degree burns_ and was in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafts, during which time she lost 20% of her body weight. (And let's point out these burns were on her crotch) She had to undergo two years of medical treatment afterward.


It WAS a stupid lawsuit. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Regardless of whether McDonalds superheated their coffee or not, it's just plain stupid to put hot liquids or hot anything between one's legs. All cars have cup holders and she should have used hers. She deserves part (notice I said only part) of the blame for what happened to her.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

Haven't bought any Nutella yet.  After looking through the thread and seeing the ingredients, calories, fat, etc., I think it would be just as well to eat a chocolate bar.


----------



## JimC1946 (Aug 6, 2009)

Give Vegemite a try. It's Australian, but you can find it in the US if you look. I like it much better than the similar British Marmite.

It's nutricious, but it's definitely an acquired taste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegemite


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

JimC1946 said:


> Give Vegemite a try. It's Australian, but you can find it in the US if you look. I like it much better than the similar British Marmite.
> 
> It's nutricious, but it's definitely an acquired taste.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegemite


Oooh, now that reminds me of Bonavita vegetarian pate... yum! 
http://www.farawayfoods.com/bonavita.html


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

NYCKindleFan said:


> It WAS a stupid lawsuit. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Regardless of whether McDonalds superheated their coffee or not, it's just plain stupid to put hot liquids or hot anything between one's legs. All cars have cup holders and she should have used hers. She deserves part (notice I said only part) of the blame for what happened to her.


She GOT part of the blame. She was held 20% responsible and her award was reduced by that amount.

So how does the fact that she was in part to blame mean that McDonald's should not have been held at all responsible--_which was their response_.

Edit: I think the damages in the case were excessive for what happened (and she had originally asked for $20k just to cover her medical costs) but apparently the attorneys for McDonald's continued acting rather like j*ck*sses on top of which the jury was told that McDonalds didn't consider almost a thousand complaints important and it p*ssed them off. They also said they felt that a small damages award wouldn't teach McDonald's anything so they awarded big bucks which got the case a huge amount of attention. So McDonald's paid.

Further edit: McDonald's (in court) was stupid. They gave the appearance of a big corporation picking on this little elderly woman whose genitals had been horribly burned. _Then_ they said to the jury that customer complaints weren't important. They were, imo, lucky they were held only 80% responsible. McDonald's had many, many opportunities to settle the case including it being sent to mediation. They absolutely refused to take any responsibility for it.

But when it came to the PR on the case they won big time.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Wondering what coffee has to do with nutella?  Oh. . .wait. . .I know. . .I don't really care for either one.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Wondering what coffee has to do with nutella? Oh. . .wait. . .I know. . .I don't really care for either one.


Ummm... Coffee tastes good with nutella.

There. Now it relates. 

Edit: Of course, Nutella is health food. It makes me happy and that improves my mental health. So there!


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

The Amazon daily that is delivered to my kindle everyday has a recipe for nutella stuffed donuts


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

LauraB said:


> The Amazon daily that is delivered to my kindle everyday has a recipe for nutella stuffed donuts


Speaking of unhealthy....  Sounds yummy.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

NYCKindleFan said:


> It WAS a stupid lawsuit. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Regardless of whether McDonalds superheated their coffee or not, it's just plain stupid to put hot liquids or hot anything between one's legs. All cars have cup holders and she should have used hers. She deserves part (notice I said only part) of the blame for what happened to her.


Do we all have to take repsonsibility for our actions? Yes. I have never burnt myself with my tea when I have spilled it on myself probably because once it has finished steeping and been moved into its mug it is at a safe temperature. I doubt that the woman would have sued had she spilled the coffee and ended up with a stain on her sweat pants or the car seat. But she ended up with third degree burns.

Had McDonalds sold coffee at a reasonable temperature she would not have suffered third degree burns when the coffee spilled on her. Given that McDonalds had settled over 700 similar cases and admitted that the coffee was so hot that it would burn your mouth if you took a sip when it was served to you, I think it is reasonable to say that McDonalds was serving a known dangerous product. McDonalds chose to maintain the practice even though the industry standard was to store and serve coffee 30 degrees cooler then McDonalds did after over 700 settlements because it was less expensive to settle cases then it was to change its policy.

The woman asked for McDonalds to cover her hospital bills, a sum total of $18,000. After all was said and done, McDonalds paid out close to $600,000. McDonalds thought that it could bully an 79 year old woman into accepting a much smaller amount and found out they couldn't.

The jury which awarded a massivly stupid amount found that McDonalds was 80% responsibile for the burns and the woman 20% responsible.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

I've just realized something.  The McDonalds hot coffee woman debate is right up there with IBM-PC, Coke-Pepsi, abortion and gun control.  This one enflames people on both sides.  Why is that?

edit:  Fess up, people.  Am I the only one who never heard of Nutella until this flap?


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I don't like McDonalds and don't buy anything from them, but come on, coffee is HOT.  If you take it out and it's not hot, it will be cold before you get where you're going.  Have to be careful.

I used to take out tea but it always ended up with the top coming loose and water getting on the muffin, bagel or whatever else I took out.  It's a messy thing to take out.  Sometimes the paper bag ripped too.


----------



## caseyf6 (Mar 28, 2010)

Nutella has been showing ads lately (or was) that make the stuff look like a good alternative to your old-fashioned peanut butter.  Sorry, but I'm not buying it.  

The McDonalds information is news to me, though; I had no idea it was that bad.  No wonder she sued, and no wonder she won.


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

mlewis78 said:


> Haven't bought any Nutella yet. After looking through the thread and seeing the ingredients, calories, fat, etc., I think it would be just as well to eat a chocolate bar.


Nutella is so, so, so yummy. It is not allowed in my house because I can eat an entire jar at one sitting. Nutella and Peanut Butter is to die for. Given the amount of calories and cholesteral it probably would kill you but it tastes so good.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

No cholesterol in Nutella  . I have to watch that for some reason. Genetics strictly in my case. 

Its all really simple, add up your fats you eat during the day in your head, have a number you are suppose to be at, same with calories. Then look at the amount in the serving size and see if you can have it that day without going over. 

Nothing wrong with a nice rye wasa bread and a thin layer of Nutella on it. I can stay right below 1 TB which is half of the serving size. I do have to watch it as I too used to eat it with a spoon out of the jar and didn't stop  . When that happens you just skip a meal and if you get to hungry, munch a few rice crackers. 

I treat Nutella now just like any condiment with serving sizes in the tablespoons. Its healthier than others thats for sure.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

Atunah said:


> I do have to watch it as I too used to eat it with a spoon out of the jar and didn't stop . When that happens you just skip a meal and if you get to hungry, munch a few rice crackers.
> 
> I treat Nutella now just like any condiment with serving sizes in the tablespoons. Its healthier than others thats for sure.


Hehehe, I got in the bad habit of scooping Nutella out of the jar with pretzels. I would go through a jar of the stuff in just a few days.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Jessica Billings said:


> Hehehe, I got in the bad habit of scooping Nutella out of the jar with pretzels. I would go through a jar of the stuff in just a few days.


We used to do that with peanut butter after cross country meets. Somehow, I don't the coach would have taken as kindly to Nutella...we got yelled at for eating peanut butter M&Ms.


----------



## sjc (Oct 29, 2008)

Nutella:  Is NOTHING; NOTHING...like it used to be back in the day.  Now it's sort of like loose chocolate frosting with a hint of hazelnut.  BEFORE it was thick and full of nut.  They have scrimped and cut back so much and added sugar; that it is now glorified frosting.  Loved it as a kid...now; not so much.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I just bought some Nutella tonight for the first time and had some on a rice cake.  It was much better than I expected.

It says not to refrigerate.  Really?  I put almost everything into the refrigerator, including peanut butter.  I put it in the cupboard for now.  Would refrigerating make it too hard to spread?  Anyone here refrigerate it after opening?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

No, don't refrigerate it. It goes weird  . Just in the cupboard. I tend to eat it a little quicker in summer here, it gets hot in my apartment. But I never had any issues with it going bad or anything. I think there is too much sugar in it to go bad  .


----------

