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

[TheKurp]

deleted repost

[fansince62]

but I thought eating Oreos was private behaviour? and now they want to take away the option to make that choice? how shocking!!!!! oh yea...and relieve me of any reponsibility......what a deal: I get a product approved, preform reasonable testing and then, 30 years down the road am held liable for an effect the best science couldn't predict........another great idea!....I believe liberals should be held accountable in the same way when their policies do not produce the intended results........

[TheKurp]

You know, the article was posted at the beginning of this thread.

So far, just about everyone has demonstrated that they're more interested in proving a liberal agenda than they are in ascertaining exactly what the issue here is.

FansSince62, point out to me exactly where this is about taking any option away from you. Point out where they're trying to relieve you of any responsibility.

Ask yourself this; if the verdict is returned for the plantif, what exactly happens?

Now when you figure that out most of you will find out just how far off base your comments on this thread have been.

READ THE DAMN ARTICLE!

[AJWatson3]

i am whole-heartedly in favor of knowing what i am eating. unless i cook something from real meat, veg, fruit etc i don't know EVERYTHING that is in the product. even when you get meat, veg, and fruit it has often been treated with chemicals-- not that they let you know... maybe it is just supposed to be assumed. i can't see any harm in letting people know what they are consuming. even if it takes a lawsuit by a lawyer interested in protecting the public interest (or health). be he liberal or conservative.

while we are at it: maybe he can sue to get genetically engineered food to be listed on nutritional labels also. that **** really scares me, but there are loads of products that i eat which contain it. i think there needed to be more long-term research into that stuff before it was introduced into our regular diets.

GO ORGANIC!

[Burgold]

Kurp,

Don't really disagree with most of what you said and for the record, I fall on the liberal side of many issues... especially on a comparative basis on this board. The statement which you said which continues to strike me is something to the effect that - many, many food items in the grocery store contains these trans-fatty acids and it's impossible at this time to tell who has what- I believe you. I believe that this could cause a danger the way AJ alludes to the danger of the carcinogins on our produce and pumped into our meat.

The question then becomes one of impact. If your wish is to create change, to educate, to make people more alert, the focus of his suit can not be a cookie. Why, because when people hear that he's going after a cookie they stop paying attention or at least full attention. You've admireably pointed that out yourself on this thread. Everyone has fixated on the fact that the lawsuit is over an item that people have already to decided to make compromises to eat. This choice weakens credibility even if it's valid. Perceptually, it may negate the point or the reality of the danger. Many think fast food clogs arteries, or coca cola causes cancer or twinkies have so many chemicals and preservatives that they have a lifespan of forty years (may be twenty, I remember the expiratiion date being some truly incredible number), but have decided that they will accept a certain ammount of damage in exchange for taste/satisfaction/whatever.

For this issue to really take wing, to generate interest, worry, behavioral change, congressional action it is useful to surprise and shock people. No one can tell me that cookies and candies are bad for me.... are bad for my heart and expect me to be surprised. That's why I still think it stinks more of money, then idealism. A lawyer knows this.

[fansince62]

Kurp...perhaps you should read the article again......first, suiing someone for huge amounts of money tends to discourage whatever acvtivity engendered the law suit in the first place...second, CA seeks to abandon sales of the product.......either way...the opportunity to purchase the product is reduced.....

it is a favorite tactic of the fascists on the left (who know better than the rest of us how we ought to live our lives) to manipulate the judicial system in very undemocratic ways to achieve their objectives. this has been going on in the environmental arena for decades....just visit the the 3rd Circuit Court in DC to see how policy is really made when you don't have the votes.....when you deal with the holier-than -thou left freedom is not a core issue (unless, of course, we're discussing a cherished behaviour masqueraded as "privacy")...

was a review procedure established when the product was first created?

did the company practice due diligence in its research?

was there independent review of any sort?

what was the state of scientific/medical knowledge at the time the product was formally introduced?

the issue is about culpability. a company may have exercised all appropriate safeguards, recieved formal approval.......and is still being punished. there's a difference between acting on the best scientific knowledge and acting negligently. this lawyer isn't working to improve public health...he's attempting to score politicial points and monetary gain.

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by fansince62

Kurp...perhaps you should read the article again......first, suiing someone for huge amounts of money tends to discourage whatever acvtivity engendered the law suit in the first place...second, CA seeks to abandon sales of the product.......either way...the opportunity to purchase the product is reduced.....

it is a favorite tactic of the fascists on the left (who know better than the rest of us how we ought to live our lives) to manipulate the judicial system in very undemocratic ways to achieve their objectives. this has been going on in the environmental arena for decades....just visit the the 3rd Circuit Court in DC to see how policy is really made when you don't have the votes.....when you deal with the holier-than -thou left freedom is not a core issue (unless, of course, we're discussing a cherished behaviour masqueraded as "privacy")...

was a review procedure established when the product was first created?

did the company practice due diligence in its research?

was there independent review of any sort?

what was the state of scientific/medical knowledge at the time the product was formally introduced?

the issue is about culpability. a company may have exercised all appropriate safeguards, recieved formal approval.......and is still being punished. there's a difference between acting on the best scientific knowledge and acting negligently. this lawyer isn't working to improve public health...he's attempting to score politicial points and monetary gain.

Am I missing something? Suing for huge amounts of money? Where does it say that? From what I read, the suit involves no damages, its just to restrict the sale of Oreos. And even then, only the sale to children, I don't see anything about an outright ban. As such, other than maybe schools selling those little packs of cookies at lunchtime, I'm not sure this has much effect other than the publicity value. How often do kids walk into the store and buy a bag of Oreos?

fan, I don't buy in the slightest the arguement that we're now changing the ground rules on poor Kraft Foods. If it suddenly came to light that these cookies were powerful carcinogens would you still feel it wold be unfair to regulate them?

Having said that, if the ultimate goal is to ban Oreos then I disagree. I'd go with adequate labelling - eff the junk food companies and their bleating - and rely on parents to make responsible choices. If the cookies are really that bad then I can see stopping elementary schools from providing them to kids, but other than that I can't support restrictions on their sale.

edit: oh, and fan - just read thru this forum a bit and you will see there's NOBODY more holier-than-thou then a pack of rabid conservatives :laugh:

[fansince62]

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.

ahhh....this looks to be more than just heightening consumer awareness.......someone has decided that trans fat is a bad thing and that a product containing it should not be sold to children.....so what, btw, are the statistics on children dieing from heart attacks? how is the impact of Oreos separated, say, from potatoes with butter, french fries cooked in fatty oils....you know....all the stuff children also eat on a regular basis? see the problem?

Jimbo....you're flat out wrong on your last point....libs are notorious for manipluating the legal system in very undemocratic ways to achieve their PREFERRED OUTCOMES. That's what being a lib is all about, after all, OUTCOMES.......it permeates every facet of their thought processes....

conservatives generally just want to be left alone to spend their income without some poorly informed, knows better liberal telling them that the government has to regulate every facet of their frikin lives iot ensure the "PREFERRED OUTCOMES"...liberals have to think the worst of their fellow man and governing institutions...they can't believe in freedom-of-choice because they expect the lowest common demoninator when it is exercised.........

Henry has it right...label the darn product and allow consumers to make a choice. the problem is not trans fat...it is diet...let's get that straight.........trans fat is just one avenue to a heart attack......the liberal's cure is always to regulate choice out of existence........"because they know better. because they have a better perspective on how you should live your life. because if you are poor you are by far too much of a dumb *ss to make your own choices. because the system is corrupt and cannot be counted on to work to the public good - as they define it - in the long run." of course, broach on some banner issue such as abortion, sex in the rear quarter, etc, and all of a sudden it is a private matter that government shouldn't be involved in. talk about an intellectual scam motivated by supreme arrogance!!! the answer is an informed consumer who can make life-style choices based on good information....

and the good information part....well...that's another charmer in itself....I'm lining up more and more with ASF....all the institutions are lieing to us....the data we get from planned parenthood, the EPA, Sierra Club??? blatantly manipulated to achieve poltical ends....if we follow the line of thought some are moving us toward, then the conclusion has to apply to asll information sources........so why should I trust our unelected benefactors who claim trans fat is a threat? how do I know that the "scieintific process", contrary to all evidence, is itself not subordinated to political objectives?....you guys sewed the seeds...now live with them!!!!

[The Evil Genius]

And here I thought this lawsuit was so that Oreos (that contain an unlisted, yet high amount of, trans fat) wouldnt be sold to kids in school cafeterias.

I didn't know they were going to be banning them from all of us in California.

[fansince62]

TEG don't obfuscate the issue.......banning Oreo cookie sales to kids isn't going to affect the equation...it's a political measure and nothing more: there are too many other elements of a diet that create the same problem....it's assinine to believe that depriving children of the right to purchase Oreo cookies achieves very much.

however, it does...

- eliminate an avenue of choice

- deprive parents of the right to make the determination

once again...this is about folks who "know better than us" removing responsibility from the equation.......you can't make the right decision, so we will eliminate the freedom to make the choice all together. and this is not the same as banning alcohol purchases by minors which can be demonstrated to have immediate and negative risks to everyone vice some medical condition that results from a combination of multiple variables......

[The Sisko]

I suppose you would have been in favor of the cigarette lobby as well fansince62. After all, why did anyone need to know that cigarettes were harmful ? Before all the research was pried from the hands of the cigarette industry, they continued to maintain that there was no data to support any link between smoking and any negative health effects. Likewise, it will take court action to make manufacturers disclose the amounts of trans fats that they use in any given product. Fact is, the Kurp is right on this one.

Simply put, unless you eat nothing but fresh meat and veggies you really can't avoid hydrogenated oils. Manufacturers (especially bakers) love them because they extend the shelf life of products containing them since they prevent the oils that are an ingredient in their products from quickly going rancid. Also, it allows them to use cheaper oils that would ordinarily be a liquid at room temperture in their products. Like the cigarette companies, they will do everything in their power to suppress any info. regarding the negative health effects of hydrogenated oils because it would increase their costs dramatically and it God forbid would mean -gasp- change!!!

I work in the recovery room with open heart patients in one of the busiest open heart programs in Atlanta. We see a LOT of patients every day undergoing heart procedures who are not obese and some who even try to watch their diets and exercise.

Trans fats are dangerous. While it sounds frivolous, if it takes a lawsuit such as this to increase public awareness and force the hand of the FDA to make manufacturers disclose trans fats on their labeling then so be it.

BTW, I'm a card carrying Republican and nobody I know would dare call be a liberal.

[fansince62]

Yusuf......thanks for your work...my sister is a paramedic and on her way through med school.........

again......my point is that parents are deprived the option of making the choice.......by your account, the data isn't there and this law suit is about foprcing that information from corporations....so, then, what basis is there for banning the sale of the product to children? a wild *ssed guess?

no one is debating the need to get better information out there so choices can be made. if I eat 2 big macs every day for the next 20 years it's a safe bet that this is going to have serious health consequences....do we outlaw big macs? do we outlaw every product that if consumed beyond threshhold quantities will have deleterious impact?

do we know what amounts of trans fats on some time basis can cause heart attacks? do we know what the incident rate will be? in short, the epidemiological data was not in the article that was posted. but that hasn't stopped someone from making a decision that they know better and therefore will use the legal system to remove the perogative of parents to make the decision through education of their children.

as for cigrarette sales....although I don't have stats....you know full well that it is highly unlikely that the prohibition of sales to minors has much of an impact: like alcohol, it's too easy for a minor to get an adult to make the purchase. and unlike alcohol, the penalities aren't significant. no...it is publication of information and incessant propaganda - that's what it is, even if for a higher good - that has made cigarette smoking unattractive to youngsters. that's why the do gooders are so intent on removing smoking (i.e., the glorification of smoking) from movies, TV, etc (just to rub it in on a tangent theme....once again...freedom of speech is ok....unless it impacts a cherished outcome!!!!!)

also...the cigarette issue is complicated because there is established fact to support intent to decieve. is that the case with the Oreo manufacturer?

finally...by implication....you are asserting that the only useful way to promulgate health information is by sueing? I agree that the information should be available....by these lights...shouldn't the suit be for improper or insuffficient labeling?

[NavyDave]

Maybe it was those Oreo cookies that led to my grandad and grandma demise at 89 and 92

Why dont businesses just move out of the People's Republic of Cali and say to the population let them eat Soy?

What Cali lawyer just sues on the behalf of "The Children" without a profit margin as a goal?

The Tobacco lawsuits/settlements were for those cancer victims and "the children" in need of education:rolleyes: yeah right.

Why dont we start suing parents and school systems for not getting kids to start working out?

The goal is for the peoples republic of Cali is to become mexico and the way liberals are running the place into the ground why not just let it become a third world place so other states can see what happens when liberals/socialists and commies have control.

[JimboDaMan]

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.

So actually yes, there ARE people resisting the drive to provide better dietary information - the same people who profit from that lack of info. Adequate labelling would be my preference by far. If they wouldn't drag their feet so badly on reasonable safeguards maybe we wouldn't have people resorting to more drastic measures.

Realistically, how is this depriving parents from making a choice? This proposal only stops the children from buying the cookies themselves, not from eating cookies provided by the parents. The way I see it, its when schools provide the cookies to children that parental choice is deprived because the parents have no control. It seems odd that this would be viewed as restricting a parents choice. I certainly don't see parent groups complaining that a school district's failure to offer condoms to students is restricting their parental rights.

[Awgustlab]

Me: Walking into convenience store to buy a six pack of Coors Light, some Funyuns, beef jerky, and a bag of Oreos. Get all items and bring them up to the counter.

Clerk: Yeah, can I see your ID?

Me: Sure, man. But I buy beer in here three times a week.

Clerk: It's not for the beers, it's for the Oreos. They can kill ya, you know that right?

Me: Uh yeah, ok. Hey, can you give me a pack of Marlboro Lights, too?

[TheKurp]

Let's get one thing straight here. This lawsuit wouldn't have any teeth in California if the amount of trans fatty acids were listed on packages of food.

A diabetic needs to know how much sugar is in foods, thus it is a requirement that sugar contents be listed.

A person who want to take responsibility for their own health and monitor their cholesterol levels needs to know how much trans fatty acids are contained in foods. The FDA has made it a requirement that this information be listed. The food manufacturers are fighting it. Why? Because they know that if they're required to list this information people might choose not to buy the food based on the percentage of trans fatty acids contained within.

It's almost impossible to eliminate all trans fatty acids from the diet. But someone may decide to limit their intake to say, 10 grams per day. Today this is impossible to do. Therefore someone who suffers from high cholesterol may unknowingly consume trans fatty acids in amounts detrimental to their health.

The hypocrisy of the Right here, while exasperating, is not surprising. On one hand they want people to be responsible for themselves, yet on the other hand they don't want manufacturers to be obligated to provide the means for people to be responsible.

The Right gets bent out of shape when one mentions socials programs like welfare. They don't want to have to foot the bill for people who they believe aren't responsible enough to keep from getting laid off. On the other hand the Right wants to defend people's choice to be healthy or not. Two out of three Americans have proven they aren't responsible enough to keep their weight within a healthy range. Who foots the bill for that? I paid nothing in health insurance 17 years ago. Despite working for the same company, today I pay $1500 a year in health insurance. Why? Because the majority of people aren't responsible enough to lead healthy lifestyles and keep medical costs in check. And the minority who do want to lead a healthy lifestyle? Well, you can thank the Right for making the job that much more difficult by insisting that food manufacturers shouldn't be required to list ALL the contents of their food. The Right in essence appear to perpetuate quasi-socialistic health care by uniformly supporting a system that not only allows people to be unhealthy, but encourages it by defending companies who ignore social responsibility in providing health information about their products. I guess that's to protect the typical fat, rich republican and make everyone else pay a disproportionate amount for his health care. The hypocritical Right at their finest!

[MarkPSkins]

I personally don't want to know how much TransAm fatty crap is in my food. Don't really care about any product labels at all. Freakin health nuts. Do you really want to live to be a hundred years old? It doesn't take a rocket scientist, poor man, liberal or conservative to equate taste good = bad for you.

Most of your parents, my parents, their parents etc. did not have product labels to scan and yet we all turned out okay. Do you really need a label to tell you that a compressed disk of sugar and chocolate may be bad for you if you eat it to excess. I don't.

How many oreos does one actually consume in a given, week month or year? Will it make that much of a difference if there was a label that said contains x-amount of trans crap. I mean the half dozen oreos or so my kids eat in a given month are not going to kill them or increase the odds of a heart attack any more than the chance of them choking on a piece of range fed chicken or pesticide free broccoli, or getting struck by lightening. Yet I am not sueing God for allowing those nasty storms to continue.

Health conscious eating has been shoved down my throat. Yes we are a fat society, but for God's sake we are a happy fat society.

I mean if I'm a fat bastage and I'm swilling down gallons of trans fat everyday, is it the food producers fault for not putting a label on it. Warning, eating crappy food all day everyday will kill you...eventually. Gee, really .

Our society is out of control. If you die from a heart attack, could it be it was because your number was up and it was your time, or could it be that you ate to many freakin oreos.

And if I keel over from a heart attack today am I going to blame the food that I have eaten over the course of my lifetime? Nope.

Gonna say, "Sh$T happens."

Got to weed out the population some how.

Disclaimer: This was mostly tongue and cheek.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by MarkPSkins

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, poor man, liberal or conservative to equate taste good = bad for you.

When I attended South Florida to get my second undergraduate degree, I really only needed about 40 credits. But the school required a minimum of 60 credits to be able to get a second degree.

So....one semester I took one class called "Weight Training" and another class called "Figure Development".

When I signed up for the class little did I know that it was the same exact class taught by the same instructor; who happened to be the ex-trainer for the Baltimore Colts. Although there were no gender restrictions, the "Figure Development" was attended by all women, except for yours truly. The "Weight Training" class was all men.

I can't remember the instuctor's name except to say that he was Polish and had a thick accent. His name ended in "ski".

Back in 1981 there wasn't as much attention paid to political correctness or this guy would have been fired into his first semester. He would unmercifully hound the overweight and out-of-shape students like a drill sargeant.

One of his favorite sayings was: "If it tastes good, spit it out."

The final exam was a mini-triathalon (run 5 miles, swim 1 mile, bike 10 miles). Guess who had to do it twice in one week?

[The Evil Genius]

One of his favorite sayings was: "If it tastes good, spit it out."

Something tells me he told the opposite of that to a lot of women

"If it tastes bad, swallow it" :doh:

[Phat Hog]

It's my body... are you trying to take away our right to choose!?! If you do that, then people will start going to back alley bakers who will use dirty pots and cookie sheets, and go against FDA regulations; :doh: trans-fatty acid child ODs will become common place :puke: – the price of Oreo cookies will skyrocket so only the very rich can afford to go out of the country and purchase them. I say the choice should be between the person and their cookie provider. :drool:

KEEP TRANS FATS SAVE AND LEGAL ! ! !

:finger:

[Burgold]

THing about it is, Kurp and others aren't wrong. I still contend that if they had chosen to fight the good fight (or sought to make gobs of money) and brought the case on the trans fat in Weight Watchers frozen dinners or Helman's Mayonaise, the reaction would be different. The resistance because it's about a cookie makes it futile. And so much easier for the conservatives to bash and that's why the cookie crumbles.

Apologies for all the cliches.

[Sarge]

The Right gets bent out of shape when one mentions socials programs like welfare. They don't want to have to foot the bill for people who they believe aren't responsible enough to keep from getting laid off. On the other hand the Right wants to defend people's choice to be healthy or not. Two out of three Americans have proven they aren't responsible enough to keep their weight within a healthy range. Who foots the bill for that? I paid nothing in health insurance 17 years ago. Despite working for the same company, today I pay $1500 a year in health insurance. Why? Because the majority of people aren't responsible enough to lead healthy lifestyles and keep medical costs in check. And the minority who do want to lead a healthy lifestyle? Well, you can thank the Right for making the job that much more difficult by insisting that food manufacturers shouldn't be required to list ALL the contents of their food. The Right in essence appear to perpetuate quasi-socialistic health care by uniformly supporting a system that not only allows people to be unhealthy, but encourages it by defending companies who ignore social responsibility in providing health information about their products. I guess that's to protect the typical fat, rich republican and make everyone else pay a disproportionate amount for his health care. The hypocritical Right at their finest!

Maybe if hopitals weren't forced to swallow the bill for every transient bum, illegal alien and other freeloaders health care would be more affordable. But Noooooooooooooooooooooo. The have to eat (no pun intended) the cost of every uninsured person that crosses the threshold of the hopital emergency room, because liberals have made it illeagal to deny care, even if you have no insurance or aren't a resident or even citizen of this country.

[JimboDaMan]

Sarge, if you do a bit of research you’ll find that by far your costs are driven up by the insured, not the uninsured. The small amount hospitals have to supply pro bono to the indigent is dwarfed by the demand for ever more elaborate and expensive care by insured workers forking over a lousy $15 or so for an office visit, then paying 10 or 20 cents on the dollar for premium healthcare. Yeah, I know, both the employee and the employee kick in hefty sums in premiums, but it’s the disconnect between demand and paying for treatment that’s the major cost escalator.

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by Burgold

THing about it is, Kurp and others aren't wrong. I still contend that if they had chosen to fight the good fight (or sought to make gobs of money) and brought the case on the trans fat in Weight Watchers frozen dinners or Helman's Mayonaise, the reaction would be different. The resistance because it's about a cookie makes it futile. And so much easier for the conservatives to bash and that's why the cookie crumbles.

Apologies for all the cliches.

This is probably the most well-reasoned response in this thread.

I'm no fan of lawsuits, but if this does force food manufacturers to find healthier alternatives to hydrogenated oils, or at least list trans fatty acid content on their packaging, I'll make an exception here. We really ought to go against makers of margarine and others who advertise their stuff as healthy.

By the way, Kurp, do you know if hydrolized (sp?) proteins are similarly deleterious to one's health? I avoid anything w/ hydrogenated oils, but I saw some food label that listed an ingredient as hydrolized corn protein or something, and wondered what the heck that meant.

[Burgold]

Not to mention the incredible level of profits made by companies selling prescription medicines. Medicines that they sell for anywhere between a half to a 1/4 the cost in other countries.