BIG FOOD! This Makes My Blood Boil...

[claire797]

Have any of you been following this story about how a group of Americans want to sue the food industry because they are overweight? This is ludicrous. If these bozos win our judicial system will be telling us that we are all too stupid too make our own food decisions and therefore must have our choices made for us.


Wednesday, January 23, 2002
By Michael Y. Park


NEW YORK — Put down that pizza! Toss out that cookie dough! And banish those burgers and root beers.


That is, unless you want to join the millions of Americans who are potential plaintiffs in an increasingly less hypothetical lawsuit that could change the way the U.S. eats.

Now that Surgeon General David Satcher has declared obesity America's soon-to-be-number one killer, class-action lawyers and others may be eyeing legal action against everyone from fast-food chains to the nation's leading snack food companies.

Some see precedent for such action in the slew of lawsuits that have been successfully brought against the nation's cigarette makers.

"As we're getting more and more figures saying just how dangerous obesity is, people are wondering if tactics used against the tobacco industry very successfully and other problems such as guns less successfully could be used against the problem of obesity," said John Banzhaf, a professor at George Washington University Law School.



AP
But others say that taking fast-food and candy companies to court for selling – surprise – fast food and candy is going too far.

"This could be a case where good intentions have a perverse outcome," Hudson Institute fellow and government-regulation specialist Michael Horowitz said. "It's important to preserve notions of individual accountability and responsibility."

And Walter Olson, a Manhattan Institute fellow specializing in legal-system issues, said that if a class-action lawsuit against Big Food were to be successful, Americans might not like the consequences.

"A quarter of people smoke, but most of the population eats things that are not good for us," he said. "They will act seriously if we try to take away their M & Ms and Slushies."

The idea has nonetheless gained more currency after Satcher's December 2001 "call to action," in which he said being overweight or obese would soon be responsible for more preventable disease and death than cigarette smoking.

Satcher called on Americans to give people healthier food and exercise options at school and at work, watch less TV, change the way they think about obesity and do more research on the causes for and prevention of being overweight.

"People tend to think of overweight and obesity as strictly a personal matter, but there is much that communities can and should do to address these problems," Satcher said in a press release.

And it's not just a matter for the fatter to worry about, he said. He blamed obesity and being overweight for taking part in 300,000 American deaths a year and for costing the U.S. a total of $117 billion in 2000. As of 1999, some 61 percent of U.S. adults are overweight, along with a side dish of 13 percent of children and adolescents, he said.

Now people like New York University nutrition and food sciences professor Marion Nestle are saying it might be time to follow the lead of the legal tactics that smoked out Big Tobacco.

"These companies can't behave like cigarette companies," said Nestle, author of the soon-to-be-published Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. "(Yet) there's lot of people who benefit from people being fat and sick, and the whole setup is designed to make people eat more. … So the response to the food industry should be very similar to what happened with the tobacco companies.

"You're asking people to control what they eat when the food industry spends $30 billion and more on marketing designed to make them eat more," Nestle said.

Banzhaf, a public-interest lawyer, argued it was less about the people who are obese than the rest of society, which has to bear the burden of the overweight in the form of healthcare costs, lost revenue and other indirect costs.

"Where we have a problem which imposes a huge cost on society by a relatively small number of people, it's appropriate that that cost shouldn't be borne by everybody but confined to those who use the products or produce them," he said. "Of that $115 billion, a lot is borne by people who aren't obese. Why should I be forced to subsidize other people's bad habits?"

Banzhaf said a suitable way to shift the weight of responsibility back onto the appropriately plump shoulders would be through class-action lawsuits, which would penalize the companies who make and market sugary nothings and, in the form of higher price tags on hot dogs and gooey confections, discourage people with eating problems from overindulging.

[aggie94]

This brings me back to a discussion I had with another lawyer in my office just yesterday (re a tobacco lawsuit that we're handling). Does NOBODY have any sense of personal responsibility anymore?? I honestly believe the majority of people today just don't have any sense of responsibility and find it easier to blame their problems and faults on others, notably others with deep pockets. It's days like these that I don't mind telling people that I work for a defense firm.

Sorry, I'm going to back away from my soapbox before I get on it! This makes my blood boil too.

[djoygirl]

Absolutely ridiculous! Nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions or their own health. I might get reamed for this one, but IMHO it's just as bad as all the smokers suing the tobacco industry for their health problems. You'd have to have been living under a rock for the last 20 years not to know the risks of smoking.

[wallycat]

DH and I were just having this discussion on our daily walk...
DH said he read an article where docs won't even tell their patients about things like weight loss or exercise because patients get offended and few want to follow "doc's orders" ...can't even tell you how I responded!!!!!!!!!!!!! UGHGHGH

We have certainly become litigious in this country...

[claire797]

It's people like John Bahnzaff or whatever his name is who should be sued for clogging up our judicial system. He's obviously some kind of socialist. Also. I used to listen to what Marion Nestle had to say, but now I think she's a whack job. Grrrrrrrr.

Does Fox News publish stories like this just to make reasonable Americans think?

[brykate]

Oh yeah, we are all victims, boo hoo (sarcasm is dripping from my voice)

No, I hadn't heard about that story. Thanks for the heads up.

[BlueMoose]

Joe Soucherey (sp?) host of the MN radio show "Garage Logic" read that article on the air the other day. I was going to find it and post it here, but I wasn't sure of the response I'd get. I'm glad you posted it, Claire! And I'm glad to see that there are others on this BB who think it's totally ridiculous!! Do we really need other people (the government) holding our hands every minute of the day? I choose not to smoke, I choose not to drink, and I choose to eat a healthy diet. Isn't this still a free country? I think the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves!

[Grace]

I must add my two cents to this. Let me start by saying that I am in COMPLETE agreement with the idea that it's the individual's responsibility to make the proper choices for themselves. That said, what I would like to know is this (and how I feel about the subject is predicated on the answer to this question):

Has the incidence of smoking been lowered since the big lawsuits? Was any change in the smoking industry (i.e, lower sales, change in advertising policies/practices, etc.) affected by the big class action lawsuits?

If there was some kind of positive change, then I would only be glad to see a lawsuit for those reasons. WHY? Because as I have complained about in many prior posts, it is nearly impossible to find healthy food anywhere outside of my own home, and the few places that do exist, are typically within a BIG city where the demand tends to be greater. My husband and I travel a lot to tournaments throughout the midwest on weekends every summer. I dread it because I know, once out of the confines of the greater Chicago area, my choices will be pretty much limited to CHAIN FOOD. CHAIN FOOD, CHAIN FOOD, CHAIN FOOD. And "chain food" is more lethal than cigarette smoking is (over time, that is, and also when combined with NO EXERCISE, of course). What choices, exactly do these Americans have (myself included) when we say they "make the choice to eat that stuff". I agree with that only to the degree that while I'm at home I can absolutely control what goes into my grocery basket and how I prepare it when I get home. But what do I (and the rest of America) do when I'm not at home? Now one could argue that you can get a grilled chicken sandwich at Burger King, etc., but those sorts of choices are indeed limited, and typically, the only healthy choice in any given restaurant is that ubiquitous grilled chicken sandwich! Do we expect people to eat nothing but grilled chicken sandwiches? Or some lame-o iceberg lettuce salads with fake fat free dressing?

The reality is, I don't believe in suing for stuff like that. Not at all. This is a country run by the rules of supply and demand. If everyone would demand healthy stuff, companies would begin to supply it. If the country could come together and boycott all the fast food and junk to be had, it would disappear pretty quickly. But the only thing dwindling right now is the demand for HEALTHY stuff! The trend for low-fat/healthy food has dropped tremendously in the last few years. The new trend is towards "homey, comfort" food (read: FAT LADEN/UNHEALTHY). And it's unreasonable to think that people will change to the point of eating every meal at home now, and forgo eating out ever. Get this statistic (I'm in the foodservice industry and get stats like these all the time): This year, 65% of ALL MEALS eaten by the average American family will be eaten OUTSIDE the home. Hmmm.

So what's the answer here? If a lawsuit forced some changes within the industry, would this not be a good thing? (Again, I don't know the answer, I'm asking rhetorically here). But I sure as heck wish SOMETHING would happen. I HATE the direction the world is going, and I don't see any end to it anywhere.

Ok. I'm done now. :D

[BlueMoose]

I don't think lawsuits are going to bring about any positive changes in the restaurant industry. Let's face it, the American public claims it wants to eat healthy, but most people really won't do it when it comes down to ordering their food. That's why it seems like everytime restaurants introduce healthier menu items, they never last. Not enough people order them, so they get dropped off the menu. My mom heard somewhere that this country is "schizophrenic" in its attitude toward food. We say we want to be healthy and thin but we eat and behave in ways totally contrary to this (you know I'm speaking totally in generalities here!)

[wallycat]

Hey Grace,.....you go!!!!
That part I posted about what I said...that was pretty much it...
maybe not quite so eloquently :o :o
I too feel that if suing means that the fast food/food processors were FORCED to sell healthier things, it would be worth the aggrevation of listening to the suits....of course, nothing may happen, then we're stuck just listening about the law-suits..:confused: :confused:

[KelLeg]

oops, my post is below

[KelLeg]

I have to chime in here. While I agree that we need more healthy food options, no one should be forced to sell anything or forced to not sell anything (that is legal, that is). Think where that could go...eventually, the PETA people would say that we couldn't buy meat or fish or animal products, like leather or wool, or other groups might say that certain music isn't good for you, so it shouldn't be sold (I'm not talking about keeping adult materials away from children--this I agree with). Plus, it is a capitalistic system and the government should not determine what businesses sell. Supply and demand does that. It is kind of like the TV thing. I wish we had better programming (down with Jerry Springer), but people watch that crap!

Basically, I see several issues in this story. The first is the lack of personal responsiblity. Second is the ever-increasing determination of people to have the government run their lives. Third is the glutting of the judicial process--i.e. too many lawsuits over nothing! It makes my blood boil too and we really have to stand up to someone (who, I don't know) and say that this is getting ridiculous.

I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh once (I'm not a big listener) and he was saying that it would come to this. If we went after tobacco like we have, next it would be McDonald's. Unfortunately, he was right.

[BlueMoose]

Originally posted by KelLeg


I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh once (I'm not a big listener) and he was saying that it would come to this. If we went after tobacco like we have, next it would be McDonald's. Unfortunately, he was right.

I am a big listener.:) Rush has been predicting this for several years now. It seemed ridiculous when he first suggested it.:rolleyes: It's really hard to believe we've come to this. How disturbing.

[Alisa]

Originally posted by claire797
It's people like John Bahnzaff or whatever his name is who should be sued for clogging up our judicial system. He's obviously some kind of socialist.

I don't know who this Bahnzaff person is - but why is socialism such a bad thing???

[claire797]

Originally posted by Alisa


I don't know who this Bahnzaff person is - but why is socialism such a bad thing???

It's not a bad thing, but America is a country built on capitalism and the principle of democracy. Even if socialist policies work for some countries, they are generally not well accepted here.

[Alisa]

Originally posted by claire797


It's not a bad thing, but America is a country built on capitalism and the principle of democracy. Even if socialist policies work for some countries, they are generally not well accepted here.

Hi Claire - I realize this, I was just intrigued when you used the word "socialist" as if it were "tarantula". For the record, I am not promoting or be-moaning socialism. My preferred form of government is "benign autocrat" - as long as she believes in the same things I do!!!

[claire797]

Originally posted by Alisa


Hi Claire - I realize this, I was just intrigued when you used the word "socialist" as if it were "tarantula". For the record, I am not promoting or be-moaning socialism. My preferred form of government is "benign autocrat" - as long as she believes in the same things I do!!!

I apologize for flying off the handle there. It just outrages me when educated, smart (?) people like Bahnzahff spout off outrageous ideas that would most likely hurt the American economy and clog the judicial system.

I'm actually with you on the whole benign autocrat thing.

[MrsReber]

The truth is that people have been eating Big Macs for quite some time now. And those people like to eat Big Macs. If you eat one Big Mac a month, you will not be obese. If you eat one everyday, then you have a problem. I mean the individual him or herself has a problem. I like McDonald's once in a while (yikes!) You don't HAVE to go buy super size fries with everything. So they advertise them and sell them- so what? I can go into any store and they will have displays designed to peak my interest in any product. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Nobody is being forced to eat fast food. Anyone who would become involved in such a lawsuit against fast food places for selling fast FOOD (duh!) is an uneducated, lazy person with no self control. I would say that DH and I eat maybe 20% of our meals outside the home. We prefer a home cooked meal over almost anything we could get out.

I guess this goes hand in hand with that guy who gets paid $250 an hour to go out to lunch and tell you what to eat?

[BeckyM]

This topic makes me think of last Sunday's Simpson's episode. I don't often watch it, but I happened to this past week (I definitely needed something to make me laugh). The basic plot was that Springfield (where the Simpsons live) was found to be the fattest city in the USA, and everyone but Marge was happy about it. She was trying to find healthy food, but everything was overloaded with sugar. She actually sued the company that made all the food with sugar, and the judge ended up banning all sugar from Springfield. Then Homer & Bart get involved in a sugar smuggling operation, because they just can't live without it.

It seemed to me to be ironic that this was the latest episode right before this news article came out. Though I usually watch the Simpsons just for a laugh, maybe the writers are really in touch with what's going on in the U.S. -- though exaggerated, of course.

I agree with all of you who have already said a lawsuit is not the way to deal with our inabilities to make wise choices. But I also thought Grace had a good point about the lack of healthy choices when eating out. It's too bad those of us who really care about eating healthy and want to do so are in the minority. But thank goodness for CL Magazine, so I can find great healthy recipes I can make on my own!

[m4star]

People just want someone else to take the blame. "It's McDonald's fault that I'm so fat because their hamburgers are so tasty." Grow up people!! Just put the **** fork, or in this case wrapper, down.

Also, I don't think lawsuits like this will ever bring about "healthful" alternatives at junk restaurants like this. Look at those **** McShake salads (or whatever they are called). Upon closer examination of their nutritional information they have more calories and fat than a simple plain hamburger! People just don't want the good for you food. It's like my 2 year old nephew said, "I don't like nutritious. I only eat junk!"

But I must give kudos to the surgon general for FINALLY stating the obvious. We are eating ourselves to death! I look around at people in the malls, the supermarkets, airports and all I see in a society that is getting larger and a culture that promotes this behaviour. All those **** advertisements for electrical stimulation machines which will give you rock hard abs without exercise. Metabolife. Liposuction. Snackwells. The list goes on and on. It just really ticks me off that simple basic nutrition is not being taught or emphasized at all to our youth. No wonder our children have so many health problems and are obese, McDonalds is now in the lunchroom!!

OK- enough soapbox ranting...sorry.

[HRJ]

Wow -- so much has been covered here, it's hard to know where to start. Everyone here has made some good points.

Of course, personal responsibility is the starting point -- I'm overweight, have been most of my life, but I certainly don't hold the food companies responsible. Whatever psychological issues I may have with food certainly weren't created by them! And, for example, while I detest cigarettes and love seeing a "blow" of any kind to the tobacco industry -- I'm sure 45 years of smoking contributed to the heart disease that killed my father -- I really don't believe the tobacco companies should be penalized for people who choose to smoke. My dad knew smoking was unhealthy, but continued anyway.

But, regarding "Big Food" -- the idea of this lawsuit is pretty absurd. Who, exactly, are they going to sue? The manufacturers? Distributors? Wholesalers? Retailers? The entire commercial foodservice industry? Those M&Ms and Big Macs go through a lot of hands, so to speak, before they end up in your mouth. (Sorry for the icky imagery!). And, what exactly is "unhealthy" food -- an onion is a pretty "healthy" food -- but a "Blooming Onion" is not. Do we sue the onion growers?

I agree with Blue Moose and KelLeg about supply and demand -- some years ago, McDonald's tried to introduce a "healthier" burger -- was it called the McLean? -- and it was a flop.

And I certainly agree with Grace, about the scarcity of healthy foods in restaurants throughout most of the country -- DH is quite tired of my ranting about that when we're traveling -- but, unfortunately, I don't think a lawsuit will change anything. What we need is a grassroots change in attitudes, and the way people think about food, and changes like that take years and years to come about.

And, let's not forget about exercise -- or, more appropriately, lack of exercise -- which is just as big a contributor to overweight as food. I know I certainly don't like to get off my butt if I don't have to -- and I also know that I have to deal with the consequences of that attitude.

So, should we sue the makers of TVs, VCR, and DVDs? Elevator manufacturers? The makers of riding mowers, snow blowers -- why not even the auto manufacturers?

Also, did you notice Banzhaf's line about weight being "a problem that imposes a huge cost on society by a relatively small number of people." Earlier, the article says that 61 percent of Americans are overweight -- hardly a "small number of people" -- his logic doesn't hold.

I'm also concerned about framing this as a "thin" against "fat" issue -- the availability of healthy food should be something that we should all be concerned with. There are plenty of "thin" people who have high cholesterol or other diet-related health risk factors.

Finally, I don't think this is so much a discussion about the role of government in our lives, as one about our overlitigious society here in the U.S.

I'm interested in hearing from the Canadians -- could this kind of suit happen in Canada?

Whew -- now I'll get off my soapbox, too.

Helene

[claire797]

Originally posted by BeckyM
Though I usually watch the Simpsons just for a laugh, maybe the writers are really in touch with what's going on in the U.S. -- though exaggerated, of course.



Indeed they are. The Simpsons is brilliant.

"Big Food" sounds like something Homer would come up with.

[Grace]

Originally posted by HRJ
So, should we sue the makers of TVs, VCR, and DVDs? Elevator manufacturers? The makers of riding mowers, snow blowers -- why not even the auto manufacturers?

I'm also concerned about framing this as a "thin" against "fat" issue -- the availability of healthy food should be something that we should all be concerned with. There are plenty of "thin" people who have high cholesterol or other diet-related health risk factors.

Helene

I loved your post Helene! Especially the first paragraph above! I just giggled and giggled with the ridiculousness of the whole thing. And of course, you're absolutely right.

I would like to reiterate that I really DON'T believe in suing anybody for any of this. That wasn't my point at all, just in case I was misunderstood. I'm just desperate for an answer, and at this point, I was thinking of desperate measures!! But really, suing is a silly and BAD idea for all the reasons everyone's already mentioned.

And I ABSOLUTELY agree that it can't be a "thin" against "fat" issue at all. While most (not all) obese people are unhealthy and unfit, the converse is not true. Most thin people are not necessarily healthy and fit either. My grandfather was a STICK, but still needed quadruple bypass surgery. There's a guy I work with who is VERY thin, but eats those darn biggie fries from Wendy's (along with the double cheeseburger, etc.) and bags of chips, every kind of junk every single day, and I figure he HAS to be nearing those dangerous cholesterol/hdl/ldl numbers if he's not already there. So again, I agree with that idea totally.

(Still laughing at suing the riding mower manufacturers! Hey, and what about the guy that invented the remote control?!! We oughtta sue HIM! :D :D :D)

Nice debate everyone, although there's not much of a debate here - I think we all pretty much agree!

[luv2run]

It has been my opinion for quite some time that people absolutely refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. Someone else is always to blame when they are obese, smoke, don't exercise, when their children are delinquents, etc.

As the mother of two, I understand how difficult it is to raise morally responsible children but, most of the time, when things go badly, we should look back at what we have taught or shown our children.

It is time that we Americans take responsibility for our own actions!!!

[KValley]

Helene What a great post- thank you for raising the point that our attention should be about health and not weight.

As many of you know, I travel a lot for my job and I first bristled at the comments that it's so hard to eat healthy on the road. I do! But then I sat back and realized that it's very rare for me to eat out when I travel- I usually always book rooms with a sink/fridge/microwave and hit the local grocery store for my meals. I'm sure my office appreciates the $$ savings, but for me it's purely a health issue- it's the only way I can control what I eat- restaurants are just too likely to take the full-fat approach to cooking to maintain the highest flavor.

I just find this whole notion of suing fast food/candy companies appalling. And embarassing- as the whole world looks at us and laughs- "there they go again..."

[browneye]

There is a very obvious missing link here that makes this issue completely different from the Tabacco lawsuits. (I didn't support them either)
THe missing link is this: one can be completely obese and NEVER step foot in a fast food restaurant. What a blinding glimpse of the obvious- Obesity has never been identified as being CAUSED by fast food! Many studies have shown that smoking leads to lung cancer, however. One could eat everything entirely from a grocery store, i.e. butter, ice cream and sausage on a daily basis, and be very obese without ever darkening the door of a fast food restaurant!

So, what's next -the ice cream industry? The pork industry? The candy industry?

This is disgusting and I truly hope the American people will absolutely not stand for it one more minute.

If I want my french fries, that is my choice, my right, and I will suffer any supposed consequences. :mad:

[lindrusso]

Originally posted by browneye
THe missing link is this: one can be completely obese and NEVER step foot in a fast food restaurant

Not only that, but this does not take into account that it's the entire lifestyle that is the problem - not the marketers and sellers of sugary or fattening foods. If we are going to try to control someone's health/weight by taxing sugary or fattening foods or by suing McDonald's, then we can't stop there. We have to fine people for NOT exercising. We have to fine chefs like Emeril who cook fattening foods and encourage others to do the same ("It's a pork fat thing."). And on and on and on....

Oh, don't get me started. Personally, I think these people (who want to sue/tax Big Food) should be sued for being stupid. Now THAT'S a REAL liability and it does untold damage to millions of people every day!

[Luiza]

Originally posted by HRJ

I'm interested in hearing from the Canadians -- could this kind of suit happen in Canada?

Helene

I doubt anybody is ever going to attempt to separate the Quebecois from their creton! :p

Canadians are quite astonished at the amount of issues decided in the US by the courts. On the other hand, I'm certain that the people in US are also quite astonished at the amount of issues decided in Canada at governmental levels (provincial and federal). For example, did you know that in Quebec margarine cannot have food colouring to make it look like butter? Apparently the idea is that margarine is an artificial product and you should see what you eat (of course, one might say that the Quebec government was trying to protect the local butter industry, but nobody felt like arguing with their given reason). For what I know, this law might have been changed in the past few years, but once I've seen that gray-tinted stuff I have no urge to open a margerine tub ever again. So I guess it worked! :)

So US and Canada just work differently -- if you want to decide something in US you can bring it to the court and sort it out there, while in Canada you propose a law/rule of some kind and let the interested parties hash it out. I think the latter maneuver hogs the system less, but then again I'm in Canada and happy to be here.

Incidentally, I was also puzzled at the use of the word "socialist" in this context. As far as I understand it, socialists are generally worried about how little some people eat, not how much others do :confused: Perhaps in US this works differently as well.