Re: Are we protected from Junk Food Corporations?

From: Lictor (ghostmlNOSPAM-REMOVE_at_online.fr)
Date: 08/31/04 

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:34:19 +0200

"Mark" <mlowry3@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5ee850fe.0408301227.5088e072@posting.google.com...
> How many people do you know who can truthfully say that they "had no
> idea" that eating at McDonald's morning noon and night *isn't* going
> to make you fat?

Well, eating at McDonald three times a day *isn't* going to make you fat,
unless you you overeat. You probably saw "Supersize Me!", since that's
exactly what the guy is doing. But the guy is not eating to his appetite,
he's eating to what is sold to him, to the point that *he* doesn't decide on
the SuperSize option himself. Notice how he overeats so much that he vomits
a few time. At other points, he has nausea, fills stuffed and unwell. That's
clearly a sign that his body is disagreeing with the *amount* of food he is
trying to stuff in himself. At that point, most normal human beings would
have *stopped* eating. He would have achieved the same results by eating at
restaurants in the US, taking a whole meal (starter-entree-dessert) and
eating everything on the plate.
On the other hand, the guy he interviews who has been eating Big Mac for
decades is quite slim. If you eat only the basic hamburger and the smallest
portion of French fries (well, I don't know if McDonald US has such a thing
as a small version, they do here) and a diet coke, you won't have weight
problem. I did lose weight in the past while eating stuff like this at McDo
a few times a week.
Of course, this kind of diet will make you unhealthy. But that's a separate
matter.

> Should I be able to sue the manufacturer of my hair dryer if I
> stupidly use it in the tub? I'm sure it's been tried, because there's
> a little warning label on the side of the dryer telling me not to do
> just that.

The problem is that a judge should be able to tell you that you were
incredibly stupid and refuse to waste tax money on a court action. That's
where situations like this should be handled. If I put my cat in the
microwave oven and go to court, the judge will just tell me I was an idiot,
charge me with contempt of court and fine me with a charge for cruelty to an
animal.
But making a law that states that sueing hair driers manufacturers is just
wrong. Because some units *can* be defective and harmful, and then you have
a valid reason to sue. The same applies to the food industry. This is not
the role of the legislative branch to do that, it's the role of the
judiciary branch. What is needed is a way for the judges to use plain old
common sense and shut down stupid case suits right from the start.

> Should Ford Motor Company be liable if I use their product
> to drive 100 mph and crash into a bridge?

If it can be proven that their products have a motor designed to run at 100
mph, but that the brakes or steering system was not designed and tested to
handle that kind of speed, sure, you have a right to sue. That's why this
kind of issue *must* be addressed by a judge, who can evaluate the validity
of individual claims. If you handle that at the legislative level, you're
going to prevent both stupid and legit actions. And then, you're giving
manufacturers a free hand for sloppy testing of their stuff.

> I get a little annoyed when people suggest that the public needs
> governmental protection from what they eat.

Well, that's also the role of the government. That's why farmers are not
allowed to feed chicken with waste disposal residues that raise the dioxin
content of the flesh for instance (which is exactly what happened for real
btw).

> Oat bran for
> everyone? No beef allowed? Bacon being classified as a controlled
> substance?

Well, they're doing that for drugs... Some drugs at least, for some reason
tobacco and alcohol are excluded from the ban...
That's where common sense should be used. Some food is downright toxic, and
some food should be eaten with moderation. And some food is in the eye of
the beholder, like GMO. The role of the government should be to make sure
that consummers get *all* the information they need to make their own
choices. This includes proper and visible labelling of the products,
including trans fats content, sodium amount and GMO - including when they're
part of a restaurant menu. This includes preventing ads and packaging from
making false or inaccurate claims. This also includes protecting kids from
food ads until they are old enough to have forged their own opinion.

> Where is the concept of personal responsibility in all this?

Personal responsability can only exist if you have full access to
information and if you have not been brain washed by commercials from year
0.

Quantcast