quote:

---

Makers and sellers of fast food won a weighty victory when the House of Representatives voted Wednesday to approve the so-called cheeseburger bill, which would bar lawsuits from obese Americans who accuse the industry of making them fat.

Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, criticized the bill, arguing that the fast food industry markets fattening foods to children and saying that Congress should not protect the industry from lawsuits when 1 in 3 youths is overweight, according to recent studies.

Filner said after the vote that the House was sending a signal that "the fast food industry has license to do whatever they want with their advertising and food choices."

---

quote:

---

The House of Representatives delivered the gun lobby a cherished victory today, overwhelmingly approving a bill to protect gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits by crime victims.

---

[ 20 October 2005: Message edited by: pogge ]

I would assume the same is true of the fast food industry — that you can still sue them if you get food poisoning from them, or if you find that they're using tainted ingredients, but you can't sue them for the fact that you ordered a double-bacon-cheeseburger, jumbo fries and a pail of pop and ate it while reclining in front of American Idol.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I would assume the same is true of the fast food industry — that you can still sue them if you get food poisoning from them, or if you find that they're using tainted ingredients, but you can't sue them for the fact that you ordered a double-bacon-cheeseburger, jumbo fries and a pail of pop and ate it while reclining in front of American Idol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no1important:
Both tobacco and fast food is not a necessisty and both contribute to heart diease etc not to mention fast food contributing to obese epidemic.

---

So do televisions and couches (both contribute to a sedentary lifestyle).

quote:

---

Or is there an assumption that the consumer should know?

---

Basically. There's nothing hidden about four patties of beef, smothered in mayo, topped with cheese and bacon, an order of potatos that have been submerged in oil, and a sickly sweet drink that many if not most people drink at home, work, or elsewhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Basically. There's nothing hidden about four patties of beef, smothered in mayo, topped with cheese and bacon, an order of potatos that have been submerged in oil, and a sickly sweet drink that many if not most people drink at home, work, or elsewhere.

In other words, there's nothing magical about a hamburger from a restaurant. They don't hide extra calories deep inside to fool you or something. It's like a hamburger you fry at home and cover with cheese and bacon at home and eat at home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:
Hmmm... if they don't tell me their meat is tainted then they are negligent, but isn't the same true of them not explicitly stating that it causes obesity and any number of other ailments? Or is there an assumption that the consumer should know? (unlike those coffee cups that say Caution! Hot!).
Likely a dumb question on my part, but I'd like to understand how they would differntiate.

---

If you buy and consume food that is contaminated with a hazardous toxin or contains pathogens, that's a legitimate problem because you shouldn't expect those toxins or pathogens to be in foods.

If you buy and consume copious amounts of food that is composed of large quantities of animal fat, you'd have to have limited your entire reading universe to comic books (er, "graphic novels") to not be aware that it's a health problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Society shouldn't have to be obligated to protect morons from themselves.

---

The reason for trying to deny Americans of the civil rights is because this case has a lot of merit.

For years the tobacco industry advertised the hip and cool image of smoking (they even used Guy Lafleur for duMaurier adverts when I was a kid in Montreal!). The tobacco industry knew the harmful effects of smoking decades earlier and SUPRESSED this information, hence the successful lawsuits.

Today's fast food industry is no different. You can't turn on a TV without seeing the cool hip image of their unhealthy products. As a parent of two kids we have to contend with constant pleas to go to McDonalds for their McCrappy Meals and slave labour toys. Kids TV is non stop fast food, high sugar and consumerism at its worst.

And yes the fast food industry does knowingly supress any negative publicity about their industry. Check out the McLibel lawsuit that occurred in the UK at:

McSpotlight

The courts are almost the only way we have to level the playing field especially when our "democratic" leaders are so easily bought by their corporate overlords.

I'm definitely not loving this industry right now as there is something seriously wrong with their peddling unhealthy food to the poor and young in society. Many of the "enlightened" might know about its ill effects but please don't assume everyone has the same level of knowledge as found on babble or have watched "Supersize Me".

Most importantly let's hope someone in our country can take on this issue before our elites close this door as well.

Other food issues that require action are the sugar/glucose/fructose industry, transfats (it appears Jack's great efforts have been ground down by the neo-liberals), steroids in our beef (why is it ok for us to eat steroids but god help any athlete who uses them?), gm foods and the entire pesticide industry.

quote:

---

The tobacco industry knew the harmful effects of smoking decades earlier and SUPRESSED this information, hence the successful lawsuits.

---

That's correct. They knew, and the public didn't.

Nobody is supressing the fact that fried foods can make you obese, especially when coupled with inactivity. That's the difference.

quote:

---

The courts are almost the only way we have to level the playing field especially when our "democratic" leaders are so easily bought by their corporate overlords.

---

Ah. I hadn't considered the corporate overlords.

When they push "milk" shakes with up to 1000 calories in them without blinking an eye over what this is doing to the person they're selling it to, there is a problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Actually they are supressing the adverse health impacts of their food. Ever notice any health information on their wrappers?

---

I'm a cynic. In general, I think people can be pretty dern dumb. But nobody is dumb enough to think that a Wendy's Triple is good for you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Ever notice any health information on their wrappers?

---

quote:

---

Actually they are supressing the adverse health impacts of their food. Ever notice any health information on their wrappers?

---

Are you suggesting the information was on the wrapper, but they removed it? Is that how they're "supressing" it?

If you go into McDonalds you can grab a full nutritional monograph beside the counter. This thing is huge, and folds out like a map. It lists calories, fat, carbs, sugar, and other info for all their foods: fries, burgers, desserts, etc.

How could you possibly require any more than that? Do you feel you need DNA information about your food to make a smart choice? Do you need "protein" further broken down into the different amino acids or something? Feeling low on Arginine or something?

quote:

---

When they push "milk" shakes with up to 1000 calories in them without blinking an eye over what this is doing to the person they're selling it to, there is a problem.

---

This might be just a rumour, but I've heard they actually "pump up" the calories in their milk shakes with ice cream. At that point it's hardly even milk anymore... it's almost like some frozen dessert or something!

quote:

---

As i said let the courts decide the merits not the corporations (overlords and otherwise).

---

Courts have better things to do than hear the same frivolous claim over and over again. Courts are for adults.

Better yet turn on your TV and watch the lies they peddle with not an overweight person in sight. They blatently target kids, use such slogans as "go active" and are top sponsors of sporting events (just like big tobacco did in the 70's).

Someone joked about the hot water case. This case was won not because these "liberal" judges wanted to punish the fast food industry. The case turned on the fact that the temperature of the hot water exceeded safe operating requirements. The fast food restaurant knew this yet didn't fix the problem leading to the individual being burned instead of just embarassed. But of course don't let these facts get in the way of a good "moron" lawsuit story.

Regarding the "frivolous" lawsuits against the gun industry. So far the cities of L.A., San Francisco, Cleveland, New York and others decided that wouldn't it be great to waste everyone's time and money and launch futile lawsuits against this poor industry's marketing, distribution and lobbying efforts.

Of course these cases have no merit (according to many posters) and instead of letting a judge tell them to get lost the US government stopped all of these cases in their tracts.

Meanwhile our feds have decided to jump on this "frivolous" case as well. On the front page of today's Toronto Star:

Ottawa may sue US gun makers

Everytime restrictions are imposed on our legal system some of our rights are taken away.

From today's Star:

"The law to shield the gun industry from legal action has been long sought by the National Rifle Association. It was hailed by Bush as a means of stemming "frivolous lawsuits."

How sad that it appears so many on this thread seem to agree with Bush on this one.

Please look at the facts and stop being so quick to judge or give up your legal rights.

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
As i said let the courts decide the merits not the corporations (overlords and otherwise).

---

quote:

---

Of course these cases have no merit (according to many posters) and instead of letting a judge tell them to get lost the US government stopped all of these cases in their tracts.

---

Don't be intentionally disingenuous. Fast food companies haven't been given a blanket immunity from any and all lawsuits. All that's been ruled out are lawsuits seeking to blame a restaurant for people's overeating while there. All the courts have done is officially recognized that if you feel you've become overweight or unhealthy from eating too much fast food then the answer is to cut down on your consumption of fast food. The courts are correct to realize that they, the courts, aren't needed in order for you to do this.

And let's not forget that before this ruling, several plaintiffs were given the opportunity to plead their cases in court, and they were unable to convince a court that any fast food company was in any way more responsible for their obesity than they themselves were. In simplest terms, the courts recognized that nobody forced the plaintiffs to eat as much fast food as they did as often as they did, nor did any company "obscure" or "hide the truth" about the nutritional value of fried meat, breads, fried starches, or soft drinks.

quote:

---

All the courts have done is officially recognized that if you feel you've become overweight or unhealthy from eating too much fast food then the answer is to cut down on your consumption of fast food. The courts are correct to realize that they, the courts, aren't needed in order for you to do this.

---

It wasn't the courts that made this decision it was the US government:

quote:

---

Makers and sellers of fast food won a weighty victory when the House of Representatives voted Wednesday to approve the so-called cheeseburger bill, which would bar lawsuits from obese Americans who accuse the industry of making them fat.

---

These cases won't even make it to court thanks to this draconian law. As one of Bush's political backers said in the article: "we need to nip this in the bud BEFORE it gets started."

Someone earlier surmised that big tobacco must be kicking itself for not using the same tactic. That's probably true.

It's also true that not all of those cases won and many were thrown out of court. But more importantly not all of them were. If a similar law was in place, none would have even seen the light of day.

That is the reason why you can't simply dismiss an entire issue without knowing the individual facts (in this case no one would ever be allowed to link their health with the fast food industry).

Read the article again. There's a great quote from an opponent that says it so well:

quote:

---

Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, criticized the bill, arguing that the fast food industry markets fattening foods to children and saying that Congress should not protect the industry from lawsuits when 1 in 3 youths is overweight, according to recent studies.

Filner said after the vote that the House was sending a signal that "the fast food industry has license to do whatever they want with their advertising and food choices, and the problem of obesity is going to get worse."

"We will never control this rising epidemic without greater accountability from the fast food industry," Filner said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
It wasn't the courts that made this decision it was the US government

---

[ 23 October 2005: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, criticized the bill

---

Gosh, a Democrat criticizing a Republican bill? Wow. When does that ever happen? It really must be serious.

I wonder if fast food has somehow made this Representative obese? And if not, how come? Do you suppose maybe he just doesn't overeat on fast food? Or maybe he exercises. But I'm willing to bet that he's done everything he needs to "fight this evil" for himself, without needing a lawsuit or a nice big cash payoff to do it.

As can anyone else who wishes to.

quote:

---

Why do I get the feeling that I'm responding to Stephen Harper?

---

This issue has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case, but has everything to do with the corporations / politicians taking away the rights of the people to the legal process.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
It wasnt the courts that decided this.....

---

It was. The inspiration for Morgan Spurlocks movie was the court case in NY that was thrown out.

But in terms of meat, can't you get good local game and fish? That was the lifesaver up in Nunavik.

Even in the "near North", in places like the Saguenay - Lac-St-Jean region, fresh fruits and veg are expensive ... and not very fresh ... in the winter.

The hunters and fishermen indeed get good "wild" meat, fish, and birds. I don't have a license for any of these, nor any equipment. The hunters aren't too inclined to share. Cod and crab seasons are over; I've finished the supply of cod I was able to purchase - had to throw some out because it spoiled.

Q: Can you get tinned fruit with no sugar added?

Yes, but not a large variety. Just peaches, pineapple, and occasionally mixed fruit.

You ask good questions.

edited to add: our apples, bananas, and oranges usually are quite good. We get the occasional pineapple, kiwi, mango, two kinds of melon, but all these usually arrive ripe or overripe.

[ 23 October 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

If not then there's no merit in setting up "Mickey D's" versus "organic whole wheat bread" as a dichotomy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
The argument of fast food being the only refuge for the low-income is rather dubious as well. While Mcdonalds may be much cheaper than your average restaurant, they are not nearly as cheap as the meals that a family can enjoy with a trip to even a common supermarket.

---

There's responsible consumption for just about anything. In many ways, it is the mandate of the corporations that peddle these products to overcome that responsible consumption.

[ 23 October 2005: Message edited by: ToadProphet ]

[ 23 October 2005: Message edited by: ToadProphet ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:
If we sincerely believe that the consumer is entirely responsible for the ill effects of fast food then shouldn't this apply to other products as well? Why would we limit marketing of alcohol and tobacco and impose restrictions on the consumption of both? It would seem that the ill effects of both are as widely known, if not more so, than those of fast food.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Those restrictions on alcohol and tobacco are aimed towards minors, mainly because they aren't considered fully responsible or capable of fully understanding the (now) widely known facts surrounding them. Adults are still required to be responsible for themselves when it comes to these products.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Like carding kids to buy a Big Mac?

---

quote:

---

I guess one argument is the fact that a cigarette is invariably bad for you. The harm of fast food comes not simply from consumption, but from over/uncontrolled/irresponsible consumption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Remember that we're talking about the U.S., where their restrictions, such as they are, on alcohol and tobacco are considerably more lax than here. In the U.S. you can buy 98% pure alcohol, for example, and it's assumed you'll know that a bottle or two of that can easily kill you. And so you can buy a bottle or two.

---

If this is directed at me, the answer is "no". There's two restaurants in our small (80+) village, both open only on weekends. The nearest McD's is in Sept-Iles, 400 km away.

quote:

---

"Although no fast food lawsuits have been filed since the McDonald's case was dismissed, legal experts say they expect suits to be filed this year. The most promising legal avenue is to invoke state consumer protection laws to accuse companies of misleading consumers about calories or nutritional value, or to accuse companies of marketing fast food to children."

---

In the McLibel case:

McLibel decision quotes

Part of the verdict stated:

quote:

---

... 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.

---

and ...

quote:

---

... the sting of the leaflet to the effect that the Plaintiffs exploit children by using them, as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to pressurise their parents into going to McDonald's is justified. It is true.

---

With a ruling like this its no wonder the industry wants to shut down these types of issues from ever seeing the light.

I'm glad that some are starting to think about the responsibilities of the food industry and our role as a society to limit their excesses.

Has this industry behaved similarly to big tobacco?

My bias obviously says yes as evidenced by their ongoing political lobbying against banning any unhealthy ingredients in their foods (e.g. transfats and gm foods). There are some here who believe otherwise. The debate over these "frivolous" issues was no different during the tobacco cases.

In the end some of the arguments against big tobacco stuck. The governments that pursued these cases received monies they could use (how usefully is another question) for the benfit of their people.

Let the evidence of this industry's actions stand up to the same scrutiny as big tobacco instead of simply surrendering our rights without any benefit.

[ 24 October 2005: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToadProphet:
Hmmm... if they don't tell me their meat is tainted then they are negligent, but isn't the same true of them not explicitly stating that it causes obesity and any number of other ailments?

---

quote:

---

Is there anyone in North America who doesn't know this? Also, strictly speaking, junk food doesn't make you fat. It's over-eating that does it.

---

quote:

---

With a ruling like this its no wonder the industry wants to shut down these types of issues from ever seeing the light.

---

Well, the article says...

quote:

---

The House voted 306-120 to prohibit most obesity claims as a basis for legal action after two hours of debate over who is to blame for bulging waistlines and overweight kids.

---

So if you can prove that McDonalds is violating advertising laws then you can still have your day in court.

The only thing you can't do is blame them for your own gluttony or inactivity, and then expect them to cut you a cheque for millions of dollars. And I don't care how badly you resent fast food or how much you believe people's consumpiton of fast food has led to an epidemic of obesity, it's only common sense to start with the hand that's shovelling the french fries into the mouth. Common. Sense.

quote:

---

Has this industry behaved similarly to big tobacco?

My bias obviously says yes as evidenced by their ongoing political lobbying against banning any unhealthy ingredients in their foods (e.g. transfats and gm foods).

---

Uh, it's pretty much normal for any industry to resist regulations that can only harm their sales. If you try to outlaw cookies, you can expect to see little Girl Guides also suddenly behaving similarly to Big Tobacco. Again, that's just common sense.

quote:

---

Let the evidence of this industry's actions stand up to the same scrutiny as big tobacco instead of simply surrendering our rights without any benefit.

---

quote:

---

McDonald's chief executive Jim Skinner said printing nutritional facts on the packaging of its foods would put the information directly in the hands of the company's customers.

"We think this the absolutely easiest way to communicate it," Mr Skinner said.

"We've given them what they asked for and then people take responsibility about whether they add it up or not add it up."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Originally posted by lagatta:
In any supermarket...leaner meats cost more than fattier ones...

---

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: scooter ]

Anyway, if the price of lean beef dropped by, say, a whopping 60%, does anyone really think sales of fast food would suffer? What if a nice, healthy fish was the same price as ground round? Would that peck away at fast food sales? If an organic tomato could be had for a quarter?

Me, personally, I'd love it if all of these were to happen, but I don't think that's really what's got people going for the McTripleBypass Burger.

ed'd to add: scooter's right though. The best cuts are the dodgy ones, cooked slowly. Think oxtail or goat... same idea.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
....Anyway, if the price of lean beef dropped by, say, a whopping 60%, does anyone really think sales of fast food would suffer? What if a nice, healthy fish was the same price as ground round? Would that peck away at fast food sales? If an organic tomato could be had for a quarter?

Me, personally, I'd love it if all of these were to happen...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
...Think oxtail or goat... same idea.

---