Posted on 07/30/2003 4:21:14 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
Jul. 28--Some Washington-area residents think the new crop of lawsuits targeting the ice-cream industry is leaving out a key ingredient to junk-food consumption: personal responsibility.
In fact, the latest step in the self-termed "sue fat movement" had some people laughing in their dulce de leche milkshakes.
"I think it's ridiculous," said Steve Patrick, 40, of Columbia, Md., who recently ate a cup of Cherry Garcia in Ben & Jerry's in Georgetown.
"Everyone knows Ben & Jerry's and Haagen-Dazs is a premium ice cream. You can't be premium without having butterfat and sugar."
Mr. Patrick's opinion reflects those who think people should not blame anyone but themselves for their weight gain.
This new battle in the fat lawsuit war will bring Ben, Jerry, Haagen-Dazs and other ice-cream makers to court if they don't properly display the fat content of their ice cream on menus in their stores.
Last week, John Banzhaff III, a law professor at George Washington University and leader of the movement, sent out letters to six major ice-cream companies. The letter warned that ice-cream companies will face litigation if they do not put the fat content on menu boards. The letters also were signed by Michael F. Jacobson, executive director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group in the District.
"It isn't fair to blame companies for something that you've chosen to eat," said Tory Keller, 41, who was eating ice cream at a food court in Tyson's Corner. "I eat it, and I know it's fattening."
Her friend, Judith-Anne Martin, 31, enjoying chocolate ice cream in a waffle cone, said she knows she is eating a high-caloric food, but chooses to do it anyway.
"When you eat ice cream, you know you're not eating an apple or an orange," she said.
Some people think this latest step in the obesity lawsuit crusade is simply another cash cow for lawyers. The movement has been compared, both by the opponents and Mr. Banzhaff, as the next big tobacco. He boasted recently that $246 billion was made from major tobacco litigation and that a similar amount could be made, mostly by settlements, in obesity lawsuits.
"They found their niche," Miss Martin said of the lawyers. "Although I don't agree with their motives, they are smart, smart lawyers."
Mr. Banzhaff said he does not make any money from the settlements, which have totaled more than $14 million, but passes the word on to other trial lawyers. "I don't ever see a dime," he said.
Mr. Banzhaff has made no attempt to hide the fact that going after ice-cream companies is a good way for trial lawyers to make money.
Not one obesity case has gone to court, but three have been settled out of court for more than $14 million. The first and largest was $10 million -- a McDonald's settlement that put the fat lawsuits on the map last year.
Mr. Banzhaff said recently that these lawsuits could encourage "trial lawyers to become involved in lawsuits where they can make money."
But he still refers to these lawsuits as "public interest," citing obesity as a major killer.
"This is not a public-interest issue, just extortion," Mr. Patrick said, adding that Mr. Banzhaff and his group are making a "bad habit" themselves of suing the fast-food companies.
The new targets of the sue fat movement are Baskin-Robbins Inc., Cold Stone Creamery, the Haagen-Dazs Shoppes Inc., TCBY, Ben & Jerry's Homemade Holdings Inc. and Friendly Ice Cream Corp.
"Everybody knows that ice cream is fattening," Chara Elise said as she ate a chocolate-and-vanilla-swirled frozen yogurt cone -- she thought it was soft-serve ice cream.
A Ben & Jerry's employee said she hardly ever eats the product that she scoops for others.
"Ice cream makes me fat," said Mieia Edmonds, 16. "Too much of anything isn't good for you."
Countersuits? For harrassment, libel, blackmail... anything??
I'd think it would be a cinch to defend these cases. Line up the people who eat high fat, high sugar diets and are thin and healthy (I know quite a few of these) with those who do the same and are obese. Then challenge the prosecutors to prove that a high fat, high sugar diet made his clients fat when others eat comparable foods and stay thin. There is no cut and dried cause and effect like there is with tobacco. So much of a person's reaction to food is based on heredity, metabolism and lifestyle.
Dr. Atkin's and others have spent decades proving that high fat is not the culprit for obesity, it's high sugar and processed flour products. That also throws a wrench into the works.
This is why more and more companies are outsourcing overseas and moving offshore.
Notice when this trend really got underway--back when the tobacco settlement came down. Every major company in America suddenly realized that their profitability was being held hostage to the whims of the lawyer class.
People have GOT to quit voting for lawyers or anyone funded by lawyers.
Perhaps we can have a ballot initiative in California that prohibits former legislators from practicing law, or being employed by law firms/individual lawyers. Grandfather in those who've already done their legislative terms, but everyone running for legislative posts will realize that they're not going to be able to ride the gravy train.
He is an exemplar of why the legal profession needs to be severely restricted in their activities.
One method would be to adopt a "loser pays" system like they have in England.
Regards,
I guess they are forgetting that personal responsibility is not really politically correct. After all, in leftist philosophy, the "community" (state) takes responsibility for most aspects of life.
They may as well sue anyone that makes any product that tastes good, as it may lead to obesity. While they're at it, why not sue the liquor manufacturers, and bring back Prohibition. And don't credit cards make people spend too much, and get themselves in debt.
Probably, most of school should be dedicated to warning us all of the dangers of all products, since we clearly are not thought to be able to figure out much on our own.
Perhaps you could enlighten us on this "cut and dried cause and effect" associated with tobacco.
Drink the Kool-Aid...
While in some cases you may be correct, there are many, many documented cases of these so-called smokers' lungs being totally fabricated - such as the use of pig's lung that have been intentionally injected with various substances.
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.