Lawyers pushing Attorneys General to sue"Big Food"

Jezebel9

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.

I believe in personal responsibility. But if cannabis is so dangerous and addictive that it has to be scheduled, then this food, which is engineered to be addictive should be scheduled, too- because looking at the stats, I'm seeing lots of death and disease caused by crappy food... not so much for cannabis. I am not advocating anyone to use illegal drugs here, I'm just saying, let's be fair, now. If 'drugs' need to be illegal because we can't be personally responsible, then this food that is engineered to be addictive and bad for your health should be also. But I REALLY believe in personal responsibility, Anarchy, and natural law. The system is broke and no part of using it is going to fix it. IMHO
And yes, the old lady who had 3rd degree burns (and skin grafts) from Mc Donald's coffee who just wanted here medical bills paid, was a legitimate case. Take a moment to review what really happened there that caused a JURY to want to punish McDonalds.

craftywitch_63

Well, last time I checked it was possible for me to gain a quick ten pounds by eating lean meat, dairy, nuts, fruit and vegetables to excess...N=1, but still. So, where do they stop when it comes to 'food'.

I seriously hope that a court would refuse this type of argument. Seems frivolous.

Maybe they'll issue ration cards so we only get the amount of food we need -- according to the government, of course. We'll have government run gyms and will be arrested if we log in and exercise less than they require.




I'm angry and frustrated at the nanny state. I think it will be worse now because of the government subsidized healthcare. I think the government is realizing how expensive it's going to be to subsidize people who don't believe that healthy living is a priority. I can't wait for the government regulated gyms. I wonder how often they will require that we log in and stay?

craftywitch_63

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.

Actually, some have. These companies spend millions to figure out what a vast majority of us will consume. I'm pretty sure that the soda companies have already done the research and either don't feel it's sell-able or their working on a marketable product.

msf74

Oh - my - lawd! What an outrage!

Some people want to commence an action and let the Court decide whether it has merit based on the evidence. The nerve of it...

Everyone knows the judiciary can't be trusted to make a reasoned decision. We should leave that to politicians. Because clearly they know what they are doing. Or maybe the man on the street who sees nothing wrong with acting as judge, jury and even executioner based on that most uncommon of commodities - common sense. Allegedly.

It's just dreadful having a functioning democracy.

QuietBloom

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.

And losing weight while they do it because they fit it into their macros. Wow, what a concept!

QuietBloom

Just like the war on drugs, soon there will be a war on sugar. Anyone who wants to eat it will have to pay thousands of dollars for it on the black market and risk jail time if caught.

ndj1979

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.

I agree that we will have to see what they actually sue for and read the actual action..However, I do not agree that if they do not have a strong case that they would not sue. A lot of times, lawyers (not all Beach) will just issue a suit and see if the company will settle before ever going to trial. The reason is that if X company determines that it is cheaper to settle, then why not just settle and be done with it? So some food companies could just settle because they do not want the cost of a long drawn out suit; however, given the implications of something like this, I would assume that they would fight it to the end.

I don't really understand the correlation between traffic laws and this instance. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so when I get my license I agree, as a condition of getting said license, that i will abide by traffic laws. Eating is something that one has to do to survive, and as such, is a right not a privilege..soI do not get where the government or anyone else can tell me how much of what I can, or cannot, eat…of course, if I then overeat to the point of obesity it is no ones fault but my own…

just my thoughts…and I am slightly hungover this morning so some of that may not make any sense…LOL

acogg

Grandma, just for serving me all those delicious home cooked meal and treats, you had better lawyer up! It will cost you millions just to find out the merits of some stranger suing you! Nice!

RobynUnfiltered

Same as one person can enjoy a glass of wine while another could become an alcoholic every brain is different so every person will react differently to these things. Just so you know, I was actually agreeing with you we need to stop eating so much. just saying that much like smoking it is not easy to quit or change behavior. By the way I have a MS in Human Behavior and don't rely on the internet for information. Tons of scholarly journals out there to support the fact that food is not what we think it is. You don't need to be rude about it since this just makes people want to disagree with you which is a shame since you are making some good points.

RobynUnfiltered

BTW you were not rude it was the guy above you in the thread, sorry man you had a real question.

Slacker16

I really don't want to have to hit up my dealer for drugs AND ding dongs! Sheesh....

Selling weed, cigarettes and junk food together sounds like a good business plan to me...

Huffdogg

The trick now is educating people on eating right and moving more, rather than blaming companies for the overabundance of food.

/thread

trojan_bb

Lawyers and liberals. A match made in heaven.

This non-logic should have died when Bloomberg's war on soda died. But it's always easy to fleece the public in the name of public good.

Jezebel9

No more personal responsibility for anything anymore.

Kudos to all here who are taking personal responsibility!

Thanks!

paperpudding

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!

There are 'warning labels in the form of nutritional content' already, are there not?

Like all packaged foods have the ingredients listed and content of sugar, salt etc listed per 100g/100ml serving in Australia. On the packaging of the product.

I agree with this.

neanderthin

I really don't want to have to hit up my dealer for drugs AND ding dongs! Sheesh....

Selling weed, cigarettes and junk food together sounds like a good business plan to me...

Step right up...................hash, grass, ice cold beer and pizza, step right up.

ndj1979

I really don't want to have to hit up my dealer for drugs AND ding dongs! Sheesh....

Selling weed, cigarettes and junk food together sounds like a good business plan to me...

Step right up...................hash, grass, ice cold beer and pizza, step right up.

coming soon to a store in colorado….

"Buzzies - All In One Store" get your weed, munchies, beer, and cigarettes here….

Serah87

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.

Explain poverty countries.....no obesity there. JS

I got fat because I ate to much and didn't move very much. I know surprise, surprise!!!! :noway:

Sheirai

Exactly! Until recently, processed crap food hasn't been what's readily available and cheap in 3rd world countries. And a lot of people there still do manual labor outdoors, rather than being trapped behind a cash register at Walmart or Taco Bell. But maybe they'll get there eventually, courtesy of companies like Monsanto and McDonalds...

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jan/03/obesity-soars-alarming-levels-developing-countries

kb145

Well said!