: If the two of you had read any of my other postings you would see that I am just as anti-mcds as you are. In fact one of my stories was pulled today because my editor thought that we might be sued. It seems that information quoted from this site does not stand up in court. I implied that McDonalds were liars in their pamphlet "Good Food, Good Nutrition and McDonalds", I attacked the salt and fat content of their meals and well as devoting most of my article to the McLibel case and the censorship of the Australian media. I now have to find a way to get it published without be sued. I can't see anything wrong with what you said. The Judge did rule that McDonald's are deceptive when they promote their food as nutritious, saying "However, I do find that various of the First and Second Plaintiffs' advertisements, promotions and booklets have pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which McDonald's food, high in fat and saturated fat and animal products and sodium, and at one time low in fibre, did not match."
I guess I haven't seen the Australian pamphlet, but if its much the same as the UK and US ones, i.e. it claims the food is nutrtious, then I can't see you've got anything to worry about. Your editor doesn't know what he's talking about and is probably running scared of McDonald's because of their reputation for suing over anything. What does he mean 'the information quoted from this site does not stand up in court'. How much of the site has he read, and has he read ANY of the judgement on nutrition? What's on this site is reports of what was said in court, and the Judge ruled in the defendants favour on this one. And since McD got their fingers burnt with McLibel I don't think they'll be running too fast into another lawsuit.
