Lawyers pushing Attorneys General to sue"Big Food"
Replies
-
I'm curious about whether people are eating this stuff though. For me it's opened up a world of choice at the food court. Now I don't have to blow half a days calories on lunch at the shopping centre if I don't want to. I can choose something reasonable from many of the outlets without being accused of 'always being on a diet' by my mother. :laugh:
More nutritional information and knowledge the consumer knows the more money they make. Diet alternatives everywhere, no sugar options, no fat options no trans fat options, no wheat option....all for the same product.......got to love the free market. I'm sure they're waiting for the next big marketing and diet fad to come along so they can diversify once again........ Nobody in Thailand knows what a calorie is, nor do the need to....j/k.'Big food' companies are providing less calorie/fat/sugar dense food options more and more now. No doubt it's in response to consumer demand and not ethical responsibility but they could certainly argue that they are providing choice and that the onus is on the consumer.
I'm interested to see how many of the alternate choices stay on the menu and what the next fad will be. Clean eating at Maccas?0 -
Maccas
I am so.
out of the loop.
do we still say that, or is that too 2001?0 -
I agree that people should take responsibility for their overeating, but at the same time, I feel some sodas should have versions with a fourth of the sugar. It doesn't make sense to me that either you buy super sugary drinks or you get water.
I like the self serve taps where you can blend 50/50 diet and normal to get something like this.0 -
And how many of the plaintiffs in this action will spend their check on a gym membership and fresh food, and how many will just be able to afford a better quality of 5000 calories a day? Sigh.0
-
Right! I mean, it's not as if trial lawyers have been the highest paid professionals since at least Ancient Rome...What ever happened to the notion of personal responsibility in this country? We have become such a litigious society it is freaking disgusting. burn yourself on some hot coffee, sue; want to have transgender restrooms, sue; and on, and on and on …
Oh wait, they totally were. We're not a litigious society, we're a litigious species.
so its ok because lawyers have been being paid since ancient rome? That makes no sense whatsoever…
And I am pretty sure that if someone tried this 100 years ago in this country they would of been laughed out of the building...
Or if somebody tried this in any country outside of USA they would be laughed out of the building.
It wouldn't get off the ground in Australia - just a different cultural mind set to litigation, I guess.0 -
Maccas
I am so.
out of the loop.
do we still say that, or is that too 2001?
Everyone in Australia still calls it Maccas - perhaps the whole country is out of the loop.0 -
Right! I mean, it's not as if trial lawyers have been the highest paid professionals since at least Ancient Rome...What ever happened to the notion of personal responsibility in this country? We have become such a litigious society it is freaking disgusting. burn yourself on some hot coffee, sue; want to have transgender restrooms, sue; and on, and on and on …
Oh wait, they totally were. We're not a litigious society, we're a litigious species.
so its ok because lawyers have been being paid since ancient rome? That makes no sense whatsoever…
And I am pretty sure that if someone tried this 100 years ago in this country they would of been laughed out of the building...
Or if somebody tried this in any country outside of USA they would be laughed out of the building.
It wouldn't get off the ground in Australia - just a different cultural mind set to litigation, I guess.
Actually, Australia is incredibly litigious, almost as bad at the USA. Major changes to torts/personal injury laws back in 2006 slowed it down a lot, but it's still out there. Our media doesn't really pick it as newsworthy, however, so unless you're in the industry you don't see the extent of it. All you need to look at is the size of Slater & Gordon, lol.0 -
Maccas
I am so.
out of the loop.
do we still say that, or is that too 2001?
Aussies call Maccas Maccas so much that Maccas changed their signage to "Maccas" for Australia Day, and actually refers to themselves as "Maccas" in their advertising.0 -
So we pay taxes to the government to pay farmers to over produce corn for HFCS to sell to companies, then sue the companies for using HFCS in their products... okay makes perfect sense. Murika is grate!0
-
Are you in Australia Alaterial?
Do you think this relates to our fancy for shortening words? - you know, like 'the rellies are coming for Chrissie pressies' which probably sounds ridiculous to all other English speakers?
I still don't think a fast food lawsuit like this would get off the ground here - but, you are right, I don't work in the industry so I could be wrong.0 -
Are you in Australia Alaterial?
Do you think this relates to our fancy for shortening words? - you know, like 'the rellies are coming for Chrissie pressies' which probably sounds ridiculous to all other English speakers?
I still don't think a fast food lawsuit like this would get off the ground here - but, you are right, I don't work in the industry so I could be wrong.
Yup, us Aussies are bloody lazy with our words, "I'm off to the servo for some breakie, some chockies and a pressie for my rellies, so just turn off the tellie on your way out".
Except when we have one syllable names and need to add an extra one "Robbo, Davo, Steveo etc."0 -
When it was discovered asbestos was bad, the system took action to stop it and asbestos became a banned substance in buildings. When tobacco companies were told to put warning labels on cigarettes, they did, but smoking is still legal. I think warning labels on foods in the form of nutritional content is appropriate!
I am 55 years old and I have known since I was a small child overloading on sugary buttery treats is not a healthy lifestyle. I have been reading ingredient labels on prepared food labels as long as I have been doing my own grocery shopping. I think suing food manufacturers is wrong.... kind of insulting, actually, much like the giant soda laws in New York.
Decide what manufacturers make by only buying what makes sense for you and your family. My household has to make sure we don't gain. My sister has had a constant trying to keep weight on her husband and sons for the last 24 years. They eat well balanced simple meals and there are things she serves that I don't.0 -
Which foods should have warning labels. Pork chops maybe, or refine sugar, or maybe the pastries that include sugar. What about pasta, even though Italy's obesity rate in single digit, who knows maybe the long boat ride made more calorific......just kidding, but seriously, no that isn't what should happen. imoWhen it was discovered asbestos was bad, the system took action to stop it and asbestos became a banned substance in buildings. When tobacco companies were told to put warning labels on cigarettes, they did, but smoking is still legal. I think warning labels on foods in the form of nutritional content is appropriate!
I am 55 years old and I have known since I was a small child overloading on sugary buttery treats is not a healthy lifestyle. I have been reading ingredient labels on prepared food labels as long as I have been doing my own grocery shopping. I think suing food manufacturers is wrong.... kind of insulting, actually, much like the giant soda laws in New York.
Decide what manufacturers make by only buying what makes sense for you and your family. My household has to make sure we don't gain. My sister has had a constant trying to keep weight on her husband and sons for the last 24 years. They eat well balanced simple meals and there are things she serves that I don't.0 -
Those "Big Food" corporations wouldn't be there to put out a bunch of crap food if everyone would stop buying it....
Yet each and every day I read threads where people advocate crap food, because it's so delicious, especially proudly bragging that they eat thousands of calories of it.
I eat fast food regularly. I do not brag about it and I haven't seen many here bragging about it.
I have heard people say that it's okay to have once in a while - I have also said this myself.
It can be tricky to work it into your macros and calories but if it stops you depriving yourself and binging later then why not?
To say everyone should abstain from 'bad' food because others cannot practice self-control is foolish. To litigate against fast food chains is obviously also ridiculous.0 -
I'm curious about whether people are eating this stuff though. For me it's opened up a world of choice at the food court. Now I don't have to blow half a days calories on lunch at the shopping centre if I don't want to. I can choose something reasonable from many of the outlets without being accused of 'always being on a diet' by my mother. :laugh:
More nutritional information and knowledge the consumer knows the more money they make. Diet alternatives everywhere, no sugar options, no fat options no trans fat options, no wheat option....all for the same product.......got to love the free market. I'm sure they're waiting for the next big marketing and diet fad to come along so they can diversify once again........ Nobody in Thailand knows what a calorie is, nor do the need to....j/k.'Big food' companies are providing less calorie/fat/sugar dense food options more and more now. No doubt it's in response to consumer demand and not ethical responsibility but they could certainly argue that they are providing choice and that the onus is on the consumer.
I'm interested to see how many of the alternate choices stay on the menu and what the next fad will be. Clean eating at Maccas?
well the companies would not keep selling it and/or offering it if they were not making money off it …it comes down to supply and demand and there must be a demand for said products because they keep selling them...0 -
When it was discovered asbestos was bad, the system took action to stop it and asbestos became a banned substance in buildings. When tobacco companies were told to put warning labels on cigarettes, they did, but smoking is still legal. I think warning labels on foods in the form of nutritional content is appropriate!
I am 55 years old and I have known since I was a small child overloading on sugary buttery treats is not a healthy lifestyle. I have been reading ingredient labels on prepared food labels as long as I have been doing my own grocery shopping. I think suing food manufacturers is wrong.... kind of insulting, actually, much like the giant soda laws in New York.
Decide what manufacturers make by only buying what makes sense for you and your family. My household has to make sure we don't gain. My sister has had a constant trying to keep weight on her husband and sons for the last 24 years. They eat well balanced simple meals and there are things she serves that I don't.
warning label on food "warning, if you over consume this you will get fat" lol….
I hear what you are saying though …:)0 -
I don't disagree with your general statement, however the quality of food out there is not great and these companies add things to them like excitotoxins which make them addicting. In that respect they are just as bad as big tobacco. But like you said you don't have to eat it right? Eat clean and eat less people need to stop eating food shaped chemicals.0
-
I don't disagree with your general statement, however the quality of food out there is not great and these companies add things to them like excitotoxins which make them addicting. In that respect they are just as bad as big tobacco. But like you said you don't have to eat it right? Eat clean and eat less people need to stop eating food shaped chemicals.
That's enough internet for the day . . .0 -
I don't disagree with your general statement, however the quality of food out there is not great and these companies add things to them like excitotoxins which make them addicting. In that respect they are just as bad as big tobacco. But like you said you don't have to eat it right? Eat clean and eat less people need to stop eating food shaped chemicals.
if companies are adding chemicals that make food addictive then shouldn't we all be obese? I do not see how some of the population would be addicted and the other part would not ….0 -
I don't disagree with your general statement, however the quality of food out there is not great and these companies add things to them like excitotoxins which make them addicting. In that respect they are just as bad as big tobacco. But like you said you don't have to eat it right? Eat clean and eat less people need to stop eating food shaped chemicals.
That's enough internet for the day . . .
internet privileges revoked!0 -
Please resist the temptation to generalize to all lawyers on this.
Many of us strongly support the concept of personal responsibility.
+10 -
Next will be Big Couch, then Big TV. They might even go after Big Clothes, for being enablers.:laugh:0
-
No more personal responsibility for anything anymore.
Kudos to all here who are taking personal responsibility!0 -
I really don't want to have to hit up my dealer for drugs AND ding dongs! Sheesh....0
-
This content has been removed.
-
So if I go to a locally owned burger joint and order up their biggest burger and fries, then sit on my *kitten* for the rest of the day, I won't get fat?! Awesome!:drinker:0
-
Often, if you read the entire case and how they are positioning this, there might be more to it. The McDonalds case is the most misunderstood case in America and always used to show how stupid the legal system is, however, that case was actually valid. This could be too. I'm not a lawyer. What people often like to ignore is that there is a blatant to contribute to obesity by doctoring up food, larger portions, making 2.5 portions in a single serving bag, and that kind go thing. The personal responsibility argument is also valid. But, there is definitely an attempt by industry and it's working. The cost to medical, which is impacting all if us, is getting out of hand.
Taking your argument about personal responsibility, you could say, why do we need traffic laws. Just watch out. Take responsibility for your actions. Why do we need laws at all? If everyone just does what they are supposed to, the system works. Well, in that example, it's obvious. Where the answer to that is not obvious is when it is more insidious and sneaky and you can't obviously detect what's happening.
R&D and marketing are the two largest budgets in a corporation. Do you think that's an accident?
Anyway, I'm just saying I would not dismiss this as stupid. Corporations spend billions hiring researchers to find addiction food combination and tastes. They actually conduct brain research to find foods that are addictive and then make those into their products. If you don't believe they are doing this, you need to read up.
So, I do believe that the food industry has some responsibility here.
Sorry to not agree with your premise. I'd be interested to read the actual case and arguments. Of curse, that isn't published yet so we can't. But, it's not going to go forward if it's stupid. You have to believe that the people allowing to go forward are smart and there is something about the research they have conducted that validates the claim.
Edit: geeze, stupid iPad. Sorry to for all the errors. Hopefully you can read through it and get the gist.
Edited again to add: I'm not going to get into an argument about any of this. No one knows details. Anything spun in the media can be spun to make you think something. This could have been spun by one of the politician feeling forced to go forward, so they make it sound stupid, or it could be spun by the attorneys, to make it sound like a good idea and try to get support. Who knows? Anyway, until it's decided and results are out, we won't really know what it's really about, so I am reserving judgment. My point was, it may not be what you think it is, and the case could be valid. We might all learn about how much they chemically manipulate food and we'll be disgusted. Or, it will be stupid. I guess we have to wait and see.
Yes, this. And there is a huge (no pun intended) statistical correlation between poverty and obesity, for both children and adults.0 -
Often, if you read the entire case and how they are positioning this, there might be more to it. The McDonalds case is the most misunderstood case in America and always used to show how stupid the legal system is, however, that case was actually valid. This could be too. I'm not a lawyer. What people often like to ignore is that there is a blatant to contribute to obesity by doctoring up food, larger portions, making 2.5 portions in a single serving bag, and that kind go thing. The personal responsibility argument is also valid. But, there is definitely an attempt by industry and it's working. The cost to medical, which is impacting all if us, is getting out of hand.
Taking your argument about personal responsibility, you could say, why do we need traffic laws. Just watch out. Take responsibility for your actions. Why do we need laws at all? If everyone just does what they are supposed to, the system works. Well, in that example, it's obvious. Where the answer to that is not obvious is when it is more insidious and sneaky and you can't obviously detect what's happening.
R&D and marketing are the two largest budgets in a corporation. Do you think that's an accident?
Anyway, I'm just saying I would not dismiss this as stupid. Corporations spend billions hiring researchers to find addiction food combination and tastes. They actually conduct brain research to find foods that are addictive and then make those into their products. If you don't believe they are doing this, you need to read up.
So, I do believe that the food industry has some responsibility here.
Sorry to not agree with your premise. I'd be interested to read the actual case and arguments. Of curse, that isn't published yet so we can't. But, it's not going to go forward if it's stupid. You have to believe that the people allowing to go forward are smart and there is something about the research they have conducted that validates the claim.
Edit: geeze, stupid iPad. Sorry to for all the errors. Hopefully you can read through it and get the gist.
Edited again to add: I'm not going to get into an argument about any of this. No one knows details. Anything spun in the media can be spun to make you think something. This could have been spun by one of the politician feeling forced to go forward, so they make it sound stupid, or it could be spun by the attorneys, to make it sound like a good idea and try to get support. Who knows? Anyway, until it's decided and results are out, we won't really know what it's really about, so I am reserving judgment. My point was, it may not be what you think it is, and the case could be valid. We might all learn about how much they chemically manipulate food and we'll be disgusted. Or, it will be stupid. I guess we have to wait and see.
No matter if the food industry has some responsibility or not, who will receive the benefit of the the lawsuit?
Not us as overweight, and or obese, individuals. The big bucks will be in the hands of the lawyers. Or am I incorrect and they will be doing this pro bono? Just saying.0 -
Ooooh, I forgot another very lucrative market to sue, Big Beer! See, micro-brewery beer is calorie free because they can't afford ads in the Super Bowl. Makes sense to me!:noway:0
-
Often, if you read the entire case and how they are positioning this, there might be more to it. The McDonalds case is the most misunderstood case in America and always used to show how stupid the legal system is, however, that case was actually valid. This could be too. I'm not a lawyer. What people often like to ignore is that there is a blatant to contribute to obesity by doctoring up food, larger portions, making 2.5 portions in a single serving bag, and that kind go thing. The personal responsibility argument is also valid. But, there is definitely an attempt by industry and it's working. The cost to medical, which is impacting all if us, is getting out of hand.
Taking your argument about personal responsibility, you could say, why do we need traffic laws. Just watch out. Take responsibility for your actions. Why do we need laws at all? If everyone just does what they are supposed to, the system works. Well, in that example, it's obvious. Where the answer to that is not obvious is when it is more insidious and sneaky and you can't obviously detect what's happening.
R&D and marketing are the two largest budgets in a corporation. Do you think that's an accident?
Anyway, I'm just saying I would not dismiss this as stupid. Corporations spend billions hiring researchers to find addiction food combination and tastes. They actually conduct brain research to find foods that are addictive and then make those into their products. If you don't believe they are doing this, you need to read up.
So, I do believe that the food industry has some responsibility here.
Sorry to not agree with your premise. I'd be interested to read the actual case and arguments. Of curse, that isn't published yet so we can't. But, it's not going to go forward if it's stupid. You have to believe that the people allowing to go forward are smart and there is something about the research they have conducted that validates the claim.
Edit: geeze, stupid iPad. Sorry to for all the errors. Hopefully you can read through it and get the gist.
Edited again to add: I'm not going to get into an argument about any of this. No one knows details. Anything spun in the media can be spun to make you think something. This could have been spun by one of the politician feeling forced to go forward, so they make it sound stupid, or it could be spun by the attorneys, to make it sound like a good idea and try to get support. Who knows? Anyway, until it's decided and results are out, we won't really know what it's really about, so I am reserving judgment. My point was, it may not be what you think it is, and the case could be valid. We might all learn about how much they chemically manipulate food and we'll be disgusted. Or, it will be stupid. I guess we have to wait and see.
No matter if the food industry has some responsibility or not, who will receive the benefit of the the lawsuit?
Not us as overweight, and or obese, individuals. The big bucks will be in the hands of the lawyers. Or am I incorrect and they will be doing this pro bono? Just saying.
So, our poor are fat?
Does that strike anyone else as something of an improvement over 50 to 100 years ago?
The trick now is educating people on eating right and moving more, rather than blaming companies for the overabundance of food.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions