Idiot Liberals at it AGAIN:Lawyer sues to block sale of Oreo cookies to kids in CA!!!

[TC4]

Yeap, they are at it again.

The left wing liberal thought-police are trying sue to block the sale of Oreo cookies in California to children:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/12/OREO.TMP

Lawsuit seeks to ban sale of Oreos to children in California

Nabisco taken to task over trans fat's effects

Monday, May 12, 2003

Oreo cookies should be banned from sale to children in California, according to a lawsuit filed by a San Francisco attorney who claims that trans fat -- the stuff that makes the chocolate cookies crisp and their filling creamy -- is so dangerous children shouldn't eat it.

Stephen Joseph, who filed the suit against Nabisco last week in Marin County Superior Court, is a public interest lawyer who last battled the city to remove graffiti from traffic signs.

He took up the trans fat battle after reading about the dangerous artificial fat in several stories published by The Chronicle that showed how trans fat is hidden in many of the popular snack foods Americans eat. Joseph also believes his father's death from heart disease was caused in part by a lifelong diet of margarine and other foods made from trans fat.

The suit, the first of its kind in the country, asks for an injunction ordering Kraft Foods to desist from selling Nabisco Oreo Cookies to children in California, because the cookies are made with partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, also called trans fat.

Partially hydrogenated oil is in about 40 percent of the food on grocery store shelves, including most cookies, crackers and microwave popcorn, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

But doctors and government researchers believe it is linked to several debilitating diseases and might be one of the worst ingredients in the American diet -- in part because we eat so much of it without knowing.

The Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, last summer confirmed that trans fat is directly associated with heart disease and increases in LDL cholesterol, the kind that can clog arteries. Because of that, the institute report said there is no safe amount of trans fat in the diet.

Prompted by those findings, and after being petitioned by health advocates, the Food and Drug Administration decided to force food manufacturers to list trans fat among the other fats and nutrients printed on the side of food packages. But the rule has been challenged by food manufacturers. A final version is pending.

As it stands, U.S. consumers have no idea how much trans fat is in food because it isn't required on nutrition labels. Even products marked "low in cholesterol" or "low in saturated fat" might have high levels of trans fat.

Providing information about trans fat on labels could prevent 7,600 to 17,100 cases of coronary heart disease and 2,500 to 5,600 deaths every year -- not only because people would be able to choose healthier foods but because manufacturers could choose to reduce trans fat amounts rather than list high levels on nutrition panels, the FDA has estimated.

The Oreo lawsuit differs from consumer lawsuits against tobacco, and more recently, fast-food giant McDonald's, Joseph said.

"Tobacco is well known as an unsafe product. Trans fat is not the same thing at all. Very few people know about it," he said.

Joseph said his suit is about the hidden nature of trans fat and the marketing to children.

That's what makes it different from a class-action suit filed earlier this year against McDonald's on behalf of an obese New York man. (That suit was thrown out in February.) Joseph's suit does not focus on obesity or on the choices adults make when they eat, he said.

Legally, Joseph is relying on a provision in California law that says companies aren't liable for a commonly used but unhealthy product if it is well-known in the community that the product is unsafe.

"But this product, trans fat, is not commonly known to be unsafe," he said. "That's why trans fat is a far stronger case than tobacco or McDonald's because people know those are dangerous."

In his suit, Joseph cites the Hanover, N.J., company's Nabiscoworld Web site, with its games for children.

In particular, he mentions a school-based program called the Oreo On-line Project, which involves stacking Oreos as high as possible without toppling the tower. In 2002, more than 326 schools and classes around the country participated, according to the Oreo Web site.

"This is a FUN way to teach your students math, measurement, working as a team and more," the Web site says.

Nabisco officials, who Joseph said will likely be served with the suit this week, weren't immediately available for comment. They will have 30 days from the May 5 filing date to respond.

State Sen. Debra Bowen, a leader in state nutrition-reform legislation, called Joseph's choice of the California product liability law to go after food makers who use trans fat a unique approach.

"Anything that brings people's attention to how dangerous and unhealthy trans fat can be is probably a good idea, because most people who go to the grocery store and see a bag of cookies or chips pitched as 'low fat' probably assume fat is fat," she said. "As the FDA confirmed last year, that's definitely not the case when it comes to trans fat."

Joseph, a former Washington, D.C., lobbyist who has been practicing law since 1980, has worked on several other business issues, including tax credits, aviation and energy and successfully sued ITT. He most recently formed S.F. Graffiti Busters and sued the Department of Parking and Traffic to try to get the agency to remove graffiti from its parking and traffic signs.

In addition to the Oreo suit, he has formed a nonprofit corporation called BanTransFats.com, Inc. and has printed T-shirts that read, "Don't Partially Hydrogenate Me."

[The Evil Genius]

Joseph, a former Washington, D.C., lobbyist who has been practicing law since 1980, has worked on several other business issues, including tax credits , aviation and energy and successfully sued ITT. He most recently formed S.F. Graffiti Busters and sued the Department of Parking and Traffic to try to get the agency to remove graffiti from its parking and traffic signs.

You sure he is a liberal?

[Tommy-the-Greek]

The next lawsuit will be against the Fruit of the loom boys. They are going to state that sex is dangerous to your heath and force them to put labels on your underwear that read, Enter at your own risk.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Henry]

The guy's clearly an idiot, but I'm not sure where it says he's a liberal.

[Kilmer17]

Being a resident expert at spotting and bashjing Liberals. I would say this guy is merely an idiot attorney. Left or Right, he should be disbarred for this frivolous bullsh!t.

[Sho-nuff]

I'm thinking he is an Ultra-conservative. You how they don't like blacks and whites to be united.:laugh: :laugh:

[TC4]

You sure he is a liberal?

Graffiti is a bi-partisan issue.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Sho-nuff

I'm thinking he is an Ultra-conservative. You how they don't like blacks and whites to be united.:laugh: :laugh:

:doh: :notworthy

[TheKurp]

Apparently, based on the responses here so far, Mr. Joseph's motivation for filing the lawsuit is well founded.

65% of Americans are overweight. 1-in-3 Americans is obese.

Health costs are rising each year and there a direct correlation to weight-related illnesses.

Trans fat currently isn't a required listing on food packages.

Food manufacturers have seen fit to fight an FDA ruling stating that trans fat must be listed. Why?

Mr. Joseph wishes to bring attention to the health hazard that trans fat poses. In California companies aren't liable for unhealthy products if it is well known that the product isn't safe. Well, how are people supposed to know that a product is unsafe if they don't know how much trans fat is contained in the product?

Rather than spending time bashing Mr. Joseph as some crazy liberal, perhaps you should do some reading on trans fat and applaud his effort to bring attention to this issue.

[Sarge]

THanks for the liberal pause, Kurp, now...back to liberal lawyer bashing. Perhaps there should be a class action lawsuit against money grubbing, headline grabbing lawyers, or lawyers in general. It would only take one win from the plaintiffs and this type of crap would stop. Oh, by the way Kurp, it's called taking responsibility for yourself. If you want to eat Oreo's until you explode, go ahead. It's no one's fault but your own. Just another reason not to buy into socialized medicine. So as to not have to pay for stupid people's gland problems.

[Kilmer17]

I fell asleep at 930 last night and missed the end of Survivor. Can I sue Budweiser? After all, if not for the beer drinking all day at the beach, I wouldn't have missed it.

[TheKurp]

Is the "Air" in your name because there are times the point flies over your head Sarge?

How does one take responsibility for the damage trans fat can do if they're unaware of how much they're ingesting?

Did you not read the part about a company not being held liable if people knowingly consume a product that is unhealthy?

If a company is found liable for the health effects of trans fat how soon do you think they'll all agree to list trans fat on the label?

On one point I agree wholeheartedly with you, I shouldn't have to pay for people's self-destructive eating habits. Unfortunately I am today with health insurance that doesn't give discounts for leading a healthy lifestyle.

[Burgold]

I'm in support of this lawsuit. I was once seriously traumatized by an oreo cookie... hmm, can't quite think of the punch line.

Same arguement as with fast food. Anyone who chooses to eat cookies as their prefered method of dieting and losing weight is in need of serious education or support. If this were a lawsuit concerning genetic manipulated broccoli that somehow had as much fat as a twinkie then it would make sence, but who indulges in deserts and figures that they are eating celery.

[Tommy-the-Greek]

Originally posted by Air Sarge

THanks for the liberal pause, Kurp, now...back to liberal lawyer bashing.

Now that was funny. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[fansince62]

sho-nuff....you're right!...dems just want blacks to be poor and dependent!...soon as they make some cash and want to keep it...well...by definition they then become republicans........ :laugh:

[The Evil Genius]

Oreo cookies should be banned from sale to children in California, according to a lawsuit filed by a San Francisco attorney who claims that trans fat -- the stuff that makes the chocolate cookies crisp and their filling creamy -- is so dangerous children shouldn't eat it.

Ok - are we talking about 6 and 7 year old kids? Or 17 and 18 year old "kids"?

Because, I think there is a BIG difference.

At 6 and 7, I dont think "reason" comes into play when faced with picking what you want to eat at lunchtime. At 17 or 18, I would hope that a "kid" would know by then what was and wasn't "healthy".

[TheKurp]

I can't believe that all of you collectively are missing the point. :gus:

The issue is soley about trans fat. Period. Americans don't know how much they're consuming. It isn't required to be listed on the label.

Once it's listed on the label then yes, people who eat food that contains it do so at their own risk. If they suffer, it's their own fault.

[Henry]

Kurp, if it's SOLELY about trans fat, why go after a product that everyone knows is fattening? Why not go after some supposed health food, some Granola bar or health shake that fails to reveal it's evil intentions.

Suing a cookie company for selling a fattening product is stupid. That's the point. And I think I got it.

[TheKurp]

Henry you still miss the point.

They're not going after Oreos because they're fattening.

They're going after Oreos because they contain a fairly significant amount of trans fat.

Forget that trans fat may make you fat. The real danger of trans fat is that it is responsible for clogging arteries.

Phil Jackson isn't fat. Yet his arteries are clogged. One doesn't have to be fat to have heart disease. That's why trans fat is such an issue. One may very well be in a healthy weight range but still be a heart attack waiting to happen because of the amount of trans fat consumed over time.

Remember, trans fat doesn't make you fat. Calories make you fat.

[Tommy-the-Greek]

There is going to be an earthquake in CA when all those people go rushing to the store to buy up the cookies before they take them off the shelves.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Burgold]

Kurp,

The question is, is suing the best method to make your point. By suing a cookie company for making a fattening cookie all you do is raise dough and cynicism. If you truly were concerned about trans-fat or obesity, there are other methods to gain attention that would be taken more seriously. The object targeted is one that borders on the ridiculous especially if the goal is mass education. Can you imagine a jury or the country being shocked if he calls an expert witness who testifies that x oreos will make you fat or saturate/clog the bloodstream. It's something most know and like beer, tobacco, potato chips most choose to overlook for the reward of immediate impulse satisfaction. Would a warning label truly change how people buy cookies? Is he after the elimination of these items altogether, if so, why only a ban on oreos? Is it the only cookie or processed food item that has an unhealthy degree of trans-fats? The case reeks of money, not idealism.

[phanatic]

60's and 70's kids should be dead!

This is a must listen from Rush today. Covers our cookie topic here. link

[Phat Hog]

Originally posted by Burgold

Kurp,

The question is, is suing the best method to make your point....

I have to agree with Burgold. While trans-fat content should be required listing on the "Nutrition Facts" label, outlawing Oreo cookies is one of those knee-jerk reactions that we need to avoid.

Anyone curious about what all this "trans-fat" crap is all about, here is a blurb...

Trans fats: Before the 20 th century they did not exist. They were developed in an effort to transform liquid oils into a spreadable fat, the way margarine was created. Also, the shelf life of products containing trans fats is longer. This way, butter, which is an animal fat that forms the bad cholesterol, plugs up arteries , and leads to heart attacks and strokes was replaced. It certainly was cheaper than the expensive butter, also it did not turn rancid like butter, but the trans fats in the margarine are even worse than the fat in butter. Trans fats raise the bad cholesterol and at the same time lower the good cholesterol, which is a double whammy! Despite all the claims that some margarines (for example) are lower in trans fat than others and are labelled "heart healthy", be aware that trans fats at this point don't have to be listed on food labels. If you read the word "hydrogenated", it means "trans fats"! Foods with high trans fat levels are: deep fried foods like french fries, chips or nachos are on this list. Cookies, pies and snack foods are also on the "not wanted" list.

Aagin, I agree that trans-fats are bad. But lets get the content added to the nutrition label, and allow consumers to make informed decisions - not ban Oreo cookies.

Yet another great reason for good "frivolous lawsuit legislation" (with financial penalties) to be passed!

[Tarhog]

You can have my oreos when you pry them out of my cold dead fingers :asta:

and don't go messing with my nutter butters either!

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Burgold

Kurp,

The question is, is suing the best method to make your point. By suing a cookie company for making a fattening cookie all you do is raise dough and cynicism.

Burgold,

A lawsuit isn't being filed because Nabisco makes a fattening cookie. Am I the only one who's read the article? :gus:

If you truly were concerned about trans-fat or obesity, there are other methods to gain attention that would be taken more seriously.

Because you and others on this thread fail to grasp the seriousness of this, doesn't make the matter unimportant. In fact based on California law, this lawsuit is anything but frivolous.

Legally, Joseph is relying on a provision in California law that says companies aren't liable for a commonly used but unhealthy product if it is well-known in the community that the product is unsafe.

"But this product, trans fat, is not commonly known to be unsafe," he said. "That's why trans fat is a far stronger case than tobacco or McDonald's because people know those are dangerous."

The only issue facing lawyers in prosecuting this case is whether or not trans fats poses the level of danger to health that doctors and researchers are claiming. If that can be proven, then courts may very well rule for the plantiff.

The object targeted is one that borders on the ridiculous especially if the goal is mass education. Can you imagine a jury or the country being shocked if he calls an expert witness who testifies that x oreos will make you fat or saturate/clog the bloodstream. It's something most know and like beer, tobacco, potato chips most choose to overlook for the reward of immediate impulse satisfaction.

Again, nowhere in the article or the lawsuit does it mention oreo cookies making someone fat. At least lets get the parameters of this lawsuit correct. And all that has to be demonstrated is the percentage of trans fat in an oreo cookie, something which of course will take a lab analysis because that information is not listed on the package.

As for knowing about trans fats? Well let's try this scenario on for size.

Phil Jackson: Doc, what went wrong? I'm not fat, I exercise, I don't smoke, and I don't eat a lot of red meat. How did my arteries get clogged?

Doctor: Well Phil, there's something called trans fatty acids and it's been implicated in causing clogged arteries.

Phil: Okay then, all I have to do is avoid foods with trans fatty acids in it and I'll be fine, right?

Doctor: I wish it were that easy Phil. It's almost next to impossible to eat a normal diet without encountering trans fatty acids. It's almost in half the foods you'll find in the supermarket. The key is to consume foods that don't have a lot of trans fatty acids. You can cut back, but it'll almost be impossible to avoid every food that has partially hydrogenated oils as a listed ingredient.

Phil: I can do that Doc. I'll just read the labels when I shop for food.

Doctor: Sorry Phil, currently food manufacturers aren't required to list the percentage of partially hydrogenated oils contained in their products.

Phil: So what do I do?

Doctor: Hope that Nabisco loses the lawsuit in California or that the FDA wins its battle with food manufacturers over the rule that trans fatty acids be listed by percentage.

Phil: I hope I don't die in the meantime.

Would a warning label truly change how people buy cookies? Is he after the elimination of these items altogether, if so, why only a ban on oreos? Is it the only cookie or processed food item that has an unhealthy degree of trans-fats? The case reeks of money, not idealism.

Again, am I the only one who's read the article? :gus:

No one is asking for a warning label. The lawyer went after Nabisco because they sponsor the Oreo On-line Project, "which involves stacking Oreos as high as possible without toppling the tower. In 2002, more than 326 schools and classes around the country participated, according to the Oreo Web site. "

Kids can't smoke tobacco or drink beer. There's enough evidence to suggest that trans fatty acids can be just as dangerous to one's health. If the lawsuit is successful, believe me, other foods containing high amounts of trans fatty acids will also be off-limits to kids. No doubt the food industry will respond by finding an ingredient that's a healthier alernative to market to kids. Will that be such a bad thing? Or do you think kids ought to be able to buy beer and cigarettes?