Posted on 05/07/2003 7:54:39 PM PDT by SES1066
Fast food purveyors McDonald's and Burger King are about to be hit -- again -- with a slew of claims that their burgers and fries cause obesity, and some critics say they even feed an addiction.
Litigators want to charge companies in the business of selling burgers with contributing to the rising obesity rate in the United States.
The National Restaurant Association, which represents McDonald's and some 870,000 other U.S. restaurants, calls the claims "frivolous," and "twisted and tortuous."
In February, a federal court threw out a lawsuit making similar claims.
But attorney John Banzhaf, whose 1970s crusades against the tobacco industry helped get cigarette commercials off the air, is pushing ahead. He plans to deliver a letter stating his claims to the restaurant group and to debate them on Thursday with its president at Washington's National Press Club.
"It would be a precursor to a legal action or suit," said Banzhaf, a law professor at George Washington University.
Lawyer Richard Daynard, founder of the Tobacco Products Liability Project, is part of a group hosting a June conference in Boston with Tufts School of Medicine to discuss legal approaches to counter obesity.
The attorneys draw parallels to arguments that helped states win more than $200 billion in a 1998 settlement against cigarette manufacturers.
"Adults going in and pigging out on hamburgers is not going to go anywhere," said Washington-based attorney John Coale, one of the chief architects of the tobacco master settlement who has also taken on gun makers on behalf of several cities.
"When the public sees the extent of targeting kids for all these fast foods, then (litigation) is going to get some traction," he said.
Banzhaf and others claim that like cigarette makers, fast-food chains have withheld information about properties he said make their food addictive.
His letter cites research, recently summarised in New Scientist magazine, suggesting that at least some fast foods, especially those high in fat and sugar, can cause chemical changes in the brain the same way as nicotine and heroin.
"(T)he public is much less aware of the addictive-like effects of many fast foods than they are of the widely publicised addictive nature of nicotine in cigarettes," Banzhaf wrote in the letter, obtained by Reuters.
McDonald's said in a statement it makes nutritional information available to consumers.
INDIVIDUAL CHOICE
The Oak Brook, Illinois, company said leading experts and U.S. regulators "have clearly stated that weight issues are all about the totality of an individual's daily choices about exercise, sedentary lifestyle, diet and everything else involved in personal decision making."
Burger King deferred comment to the restaurant group.
"Dietitians will tell you that all foods can fit into a diet," Steven Anderson, president of the group, said. "Anything that makes a connection with tobacco, which does have addictive properties, to food, is a twisted and tortuous maze."
Some legal experts who have studied tobacco law say they think similarities between anti-cigarette legislation and anti-obesity claims are a stretch and smell of legal opportunism at a time when McDonald's and other fast-food companies are struggling financially.
"The facts are that high fat, high calorie food is not good for you. It would be preposterous to suggest that's any revelation," said Harlan Loeb, a Northwestern University law professor who has studied tobacco law. "Plaintiffs lawyers know full well they (fast-food companies) can ill afford to be dragged through protracted, high-profile lawsuits."
But those crafting anti-obesity claims said the risks to the public are not so obvious, and they are pushing for laws requiring fast-food chains to disclose calories and fat on foods like Big Macs, preferably through labelling. Banzhaf wants warning notices, not unlike those on cigarettes.
And while the public may have difficulty swallowing claims that people can blame obesity on a specific company or food, the issue is gaining ground. The first major obesity case, filed on behalf of two teenage girls against McDonald's, has been resubmitted to a Manhattan federal court.
Judge Robert Sweet dismissed the original suit but suggested the methods McDonald's uses to process its food could make it more dangerous than customers have reason to expect.
I hate stupid lawyers!
Almost... sorta... kinda... anyhow they got lots of money so I am sure they will cough up a few billion to feed the friendly lawsuit industry.
How they hell do Lawyers do it?
They produce nothing, they gobble money like pigs in windfall apples, they are utterly a-moral and it is always possible to find one that will take either side of any case because they get paid regardless...
And we let them DO IT!!!!
Shakespeare had the right idea. Let's hang them.
I really wish you wouldn't give them ideas like this. Actually, I think that all except computers have already been approached to see if the easily scared wanted to pay.
The extent to which these things can be taken is illustrated by the Asbestos cases. Now, even if you walked into a factory where asbestos was being applied, you get money for your fears.
To apply this precedent to this fast food lawsuit, your parent's insurance company will be sued because your Mom actually drove you to eat at Mickey D! Talk about being a facilitator!
Yeh, food IS addictive. If you don't eat some type of food, you DIE!
That being said, yes, we did try to warn the great unwashed masses. Some right here on FR. Seems they didn't believe our words and it will now, or later, come back to bite them on their derrier.
Wrong, they produce negative income, which is worse. In this case of Fast Food, just imagine the settlement based on past cases. The customers will get a few pennies off on their next Fast Food Purchase, the Lawyers will get BILLIONS as they sob before expertly selected jurors and compliant (Klintoon) Judges.
I do begin to dispair, we have taken our great legacy and thrown it to the ravenous hyenas of the Trial Lawyers. They tithe themselves to insure activist politicians continue to maintain this friendly climate. (Follow the Edwards campaign scandal as reported in Roll Call and other places.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.