[REAL 1]

You can't compare the McD's case to the tobacco cases. Tobacco contains ADDICTIVE nicotine which the industry knew was addiictive but did not advise the public. If you are unknowingly getting addicted to something because a manufacture puts an addictive ingredient in the product and does not warn you thats over the line and actionable.

I know of no addiction to sugar, salt or any other food stuff. Not a good analogy.

Cigarettes led to thousands of horrible deaths due to cancer. Don't even try to put this silly McD case in the same category. Thats just ridiculous.

What the Judge said in dismissing the case makes sense and is consistent with product liability law. If there is some ingredient in the product that you would not reasonably expect and that speicific ingredient results in health problems if ingested in reasonable quantities or has an addictive quality to it then thats a whole new ball game and then there might be a legitimate claim.

The Judge didn't give them another shot at all. All the judge did was to point out that they didn't state a cause of action in the case. To state a cause of action they will need to prove a violation of established according to product liability principles which they did not.

If the plaintiff's want to waste their time analyzing chicken nuggets thats their business. I think short of showing something that you wouldn't expect in the food that causes health problems they are wasting their time.

In short if all the plaintiffs in the McD case are saying is that "they should have told us we would get fat if we ate this stuff day and night" the case is crap and should have been tossed.