Re: Are we protected from Junk Food Corporations?

From: Piezzo Guru (gabusey_at_hotnmail.com)
Date: 08/31/04 

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:39:23 -0400

No you will lose weight from the cancer consuming your body.

"Lictor" <ghostmlNOSPAM-REMOVE@online.fr> wrote in message
news:413429fb$0$19863$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-04.noos.net...
> "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.
>
>

Loading