'Cheeseburger bill' set to stop obesity lawsuits

[Dodger]

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=159815808&p=y598y65y4

20/10/2005 - 14:25:20

A so-called “cheeseburger bill” that would prevent obese people suing the fast food industry has been passed by the US House of Representatives.

Fat Americans will no longer be able to blame their weight on eating too much junk if the law is passed by the Senate.

The measure stems from lawsuits accusing McDonald’s of causing obesity in tens of thousands of children.

Republican supporter Mike Rogers said: “You cannot litigate personal choices and lifestyles.”

Obesity among children in the United States has doubled in the past three decades, with one in three now overweight.

The National Council of Chain Restaurants welcomed the bill, denouncing “frivolous” obesity lawsuits.

“Food is only one part of what must be a multi-faceted solution to the problem, and all foods can be part of a healthy, balanced diet,” said spokesman Scott Vinson.

The council represents brands including McDonald’s, Burger King and KFC.

Critics of the bill claim that fast food companies should be held accountable for their harmful products.

The legislation, named the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, would not prevent lawsuits stemming from contaminated food.

[Bat Spit]

“You cannot litigate personal choices and lifestyles.”

I am so very glad to hear this. I assume this means the republicans will soon be supporting gay marriage, pro-choice laws, and polygamy?

Don't be ridiculous. The federal government has been litigating personal choices and lifestyles since shortly after we ADOPTED a federal government. Or possibly before.

I don't think suing McDonalds for obesity is any more or less ridiculous than thousands of other lawsuits that happen every day in this country.

[tie_guy]

The difference between the fast food industry and other industries that don't have bills or laws preventing someone from suing is that:
1. Food industry has a lot of money and therefor probably a lot of political influence, and
2. Victums of the industry (fat people) have a stigma that isn't shared by any other victum of a medical problem.

I am not sure if people should be able to sue the fast food industry, but maybe we should be able to sue carb producers if it ever comes out that they did something like covered up evidence of the benefits of LC diets on purpose.

[eepobee]

i'm not a supporter of big business or fast-food restaurants, but i do believe these lawsuits were frivolous. in order to sue a fast food restaurant, you need to prove that their food surreptiously caused you to get fat. if i eat a cheeseburger (with bun) at home, does it contribute any more or less to my obesity? if i drink coke at an expensive restaurant is it somehow healthier?

what is fast food anyway? if i buy a salad at burger king is it fast food? ridiculous....

[Nancy LC]

LOL! Good observation, Bat Spit!

If a restaurant is providing nutritional information openly and making that accessible to everyone, I don't see they can be held accountable for anything.

But... I would like to see tighter regulations on common food allergens. I want corporate assurance that what I am eating isn't contaminated with allergens, outside of the obvious... peanuts in peanut butter, for instance. :p

[mio1996]

Even though I am always suspicious of the motives of politicians, I am glad to see this bill passed by the House. This is one instance in which Republican have upheld their pledge to fight for limited government in America.

Fat Americans will no longer be able to blame their weight on eating too much junk if the law is passed by the Senate.What a completely ignorant statement! The bill says no such thing--it only says you can't blame the man who sold you the junk food, duh. Just because the food is being cooked in the fast food joint doesn't mean anyone is holding a gun to your head to make you eat it.

Is there anyone is America by now who DOESN'T know that eating too many cheeseburgers and french fries will make you fat and unhealthy? I doubt there are very many.

It is a personal choice to eat junk or not eat junk. If you choose to eat junk, fine, you will be unhealthy. It is your choice, period.

[mio1996]

If a restaurant is providing nutritional information openly and making that accessible to everyone, I don't see they can be held accountable for anything.

But... I would like to see tighter regulations on common food allergens. I want corporate assurance that what I am eating isn't contaminated with allergens, outside of the obvious... peanuts in peanut butter, for instance.Complete agreement there, Nancy. I think as long as the establishment lets us know exactly what ingredients are being used, it is up to the consumer to decide what to eat and what not to eat.

[LC FP]

The measure stems from lawsuits accusing McDonald’s of causing obesity in tens of thousands of children.

MacDonalds doesn't cause obesity. The USDA causes obesity.

[kwikdriver]

Even though I am always suspicious of the motives of politicians, I am glad to see this bill passed by the House. This is one instance in which Republican have upheld their pledge to fight for limited government in America.

In what way does taking away the right to sue, even something as dubious as fast food lawsuits, represent fighting for limited government? It seems to me that this is expanding the role of government, by allowing legislators, not juries and judges, to decide what is and isn't a frivolous lawsuit.

Personally, I'd rather a jury of my peers -- people like me -- decide the merits and demerits of my grievances, rather than a group of people in Washington, who are, it is being made clear by recent events, bought and sold for the price of a golfing junket or a few campaign contributions most of which come --Surprise! -- from companies like McDonald's. I'd rather my fate was being decided by citizens instead of Washington lobbyists and their hirelings, or rentlings.

[Mandra]

The measure stems from lawsuits accusing McDonald’s of causing obesity in tens of thousands of children.



So Ronald McDonald walked into these children's homes and fed them? Or maybe the PARENTS are to blame for feeding their kids this crap. Are there any parents out there that think a Happy Meal is a healthy part of a balanced diet? Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own decisions?

[kyrasdad]

Gosh, I can't decide whether I like this because it tweaked the noses of trial lawyers, who have been trying to figure out ways to cash in on obesity for years, or hate it because it protects fast food purveyors, who have been marketing carby poison for years, particularly to children.

I'd probably go with Kwikdriver's opinion that a jury and judge should be deciding whether or not it's frivilous, although I think we should be aware that lawsuits these days, especially mass torts, which is where they'd like to take obesity law, are an industry like any other, deserving of regulation, like any other.

[gryfonclaw]

Personally, I'd rather a jury of my peers -- people like me -- decide the merits and demerits of my grievances, rather than a group of people in Washington, who are, it is being made clear by recent events, bought and sold for the price of a golfing junket or a few campaign contributions most of which come --Surprise! -- from companies like McDonald's. I'd rather my fate was being decided by citizens instead of Washington lobbyists and their hirelings, or rentlings.

I'd rather my fate was decided by the people that I voted for...not judges (most of whom are appointed meaning no election), nor my "peers" (whom I don't trust).


Anyway...I think we should sue everyone who might have possibly done something at some point to harm us...I guess Mom is first on the list.

Or the vending machines in my highschool.
Or Kraft Foods.
Or General Mills.
Or Coca-cola.

You know what? Screw it, I'll go sue ConAgra. That'll sorta consolidate everything in one nice pricey package.

[kwikdriver]

I'd rather my fate was decided by the people that I voted for...not judges (most of whom are appointed meaning no election), nor my "peers" (whom I don't trust).

Who appoints these judges? Elected politicians. And in most states trial judges are elected, not appointed, contrary to your claim.


Anyway...I think we should sue everyone who might have possibly done something at some point to harm us...I guess Mom is first on the list.

I don't. I just want my lawsuits to have a chance to be decided by people and competent judges I get a chance to vote for or against, without having the right taken away from me by Washington legislators, the vast majority of whom I have never had, and will never get, the opportunity to vote for or against.

[mio1996]

In what way does taking away the right to sue, even something as dubious as fast food lawsuits, represent fighting for limited government? It seems to me that this is expanding the role of government, by allowing legislators, not juries and judges, to decide what is and isn't a frivolous lawsuit.

Personally, I'd rather a jury of my peers -- people like me -- decide the merits and demerits of my grievances, rather than a group of people in Washington, who are, it is being made clear by recent events, bought and sold for the price of a golfing junket or a few campaign contributions most of which come --Surprise! -- from companies like McDonald's. I'd rather my fate was being decided by citizens instead of Washington lobbyists and their hirelings, or rentlings.Yeah, actually I did misspeak--I think that's called a brain fart :) What I like about the bill is that it takes personal responsibility and decisions out of the hands of strangers and puts it into the hands of the people who actually make those decisions.

Like I said, though, I am highly suspicious of the actual motive behind the bill.

Really the problem is that our elected representatives should be the ones we can trust the most--but sadly it isn't true, and no matter whta the system will never be right again because virtually everyone in it is corrupt to some extent.

Thanks for calling me out on that one, I would hate to let that one go unrecanted--I don't really know what I was thinking...that's what I get for posting while exhausted, I guess :)

[gryfonclaw]

Who appoints these judges? Elected politicians. And in most states trial judges are elected, not appointed, contrary to your claim.




I don't. I just want my lawsuits to have a chance to be decided by people and competent judges I get a chance to vote for or against, without having the right taken away from me by Washington legislators, the vast majority of whom I have never had, and will never get, the opportunity to vote for or against.

I was being sarcasic on the secondary claim.


As for judges, when they are appointed, they are appointed for life, far outstripping most politican's careers. I do not refer to judges that are elected.

[Lisa N]

Are there any parents out there that think a Happy Meal is a healthy part of a balanced diet?

Many of them. Especially since the media, again and again, trots out nutritionists who state that all foods (including fast food) can be part of a healthy diet in moderation. The problem with that is nobody can seem to agree what 'moderation' of consumption of such foods really is. Is it once a day? Once a week? Once a month?