Lawyers pushing Attorneys General to sue"Big Food"

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.

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.

Please resist the temptation to generalize to all lawyers on this.

Many of us strongly support the concept of personal responsibility.

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.

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.