Lawsuit: Ban Oreo Cookies

[Guest I'm That Damn Zzzzz]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86702,00.html

 

Lawsuit Seeks to Ban Oreo Cookies Due to Health Concerns

Tuesday, May 13, 2003

 

 

SAN FRANCISCO  — Kids in California may have to give up their Oreos, if a lawsuit filed by a San Francisco public interest lawyer is successful.

 

The lawsuit, filed May 1 in Marin County Superior Court, seeks a ban on the black and white cookies, arguing the trans fats that make the filling creamy and the cookie crisp are too dangerous for children to eat.

 

Stephen Joseph filed the suit against Nabisco, the maker of Oreos, after reading articles about the health threat posed by the artificial fat that is contained in most packaged foods but isn't listed with other nutritional information.

 

The big difference between this suit and others that have targeted tobacco and McDonald's fast food is that consumers know that tobacco is bad for their health and that McDonald's food contains a lot of fat, Joseph said.

 

"Trans fat is not the same thing at all. Very few people know about it," he said, explaining that his suit focuses on the fact that trans fats are contained hidden dangers being marketed to children.

 

Joseph said he targeted Nabisco because as other major snack food sellers reduced the amount of trans fats in their products, Nabisco had not.

 

Nabisco has been exploring ways to reduce trans fats in Oreos, said company spokesman Michael Mudd. He also pointed out that reduced fat Oreos have half the trans fats as the regular kind.

 

"Nutrition policy is best left to health professionals and regulatory agencies," said Mudd. "They have the expertise to address nutritional issues in the full context of people's overall eating and activity background."

 

The National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, which advises the government on health policy, said last summer that this kind of fat should not be consumed at all. It is directly associated with heart disease and with LDL cholesterol, the 'bad' kind that accumulates in arteries.

 

But the U.S. Department of Agriculture said partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which contain trans fats, are present in about 40 percent of the food on grocery store shelves. Cookies, crackers, and microwave popcorn are the biggest carriers of trans fats, which are created when hydrogen is bubbled through oil to produce a margarine that doesn't melt at room temperature and increases the product's shelf life.

 

The Food and Drug Administration has tried to force food companies to list trans fat content with other nutritional information on food packages, but manufacturers have challenged the rule. Even food labeled "low in cholesterol" or "low in saturated fats" may have high percentages of trans fats.

 

Informing customers about trans fats on food labels could prevent 7,600 to 17,100 cases of coronary heart disease and 2,500 to 5,600 deaths per year, the FDA has estimated.

 

The case is Bantransfat.com, Inc. vs. Kraft Foods North America, No. CV 032-041.

 

The courts giveth and the courts taketh away. If this goes through will there be Oreo raids and Oreo bootleggers? How do you build a trans-fat still?

[Guest Slapnuts00]

When will they learn? It will be like prohibition all over again! Oreo Speakeasies!

 

Seriously, though pretty much all junk food has useless fat in it. Its not the job of the courts to regulate what we eat...

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I'm not blown away by this. In fact, I see it all the time.

 

Marin County is pretty darn full of rich people, much of them lawyers. And when the tennis courts and social circles get boring, they entertain themselves by issueing lawsuits of questionable importance and defending them viciously.

 

Marin's also kind of like the HQ of the whole "here, drink this shake I made out of various plants. I swear it's good for you" juice bar thang. So as a result a bunch of health-centric types live there.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

EVERYONE knows eating heavy amounts of cookies is bad for you. So what makes this case different than McDs? This is another example of a fucking waste of our court system. If the school this is coming from didn't want Oeros in the school ask for healthier snacks. But theses are Oeros, not cigarettes. They are legal to eat. If you want the kids to be healthier how about this. Durring gym class have them work out. Not just talking. That is a good way to stay in shape. Make more sports and other programs to keep kids active. Oeros aren't the problem. The fat in them aren't the problem. It is the fact that people don't go out and play like they used to.

 

BTW: This trend of stupid suits to get rid of fast foods and that others made people fat is just fucking retarded. I also add people who sue Big Tabacco because they got lung Cancer even though it has been well known that people who smoke get sick. I blame the user not the product.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I also add people who sue Big Tabacco because they got lung Cancer even though it has been well known that people who smoke get sick.

The tobacco companies actually tried to hide documents and facts about smoking being bad for you.

 

I say, if they've been smoking since those days then they can. You would have never known a few decades ago that cigarettes did damage.

[Guest DrTom]

Stephen Joseph filed the suit against Nabisco, the maker of Oreos...

Popick's trying to get Oreos taken away!? BAN PLZ~!

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Popick's trying to get Oreos taken away!?

Well that snaps it then.

 

B&

[Guest Sandman9000]

Ban Popick. Keep Oreos.

[Guest Texas Small Arms 09]

I saw this guy on Good Morning America this morning and Robin Roberts was trying not to laugh at this guy. He is claiming Oreos are too fatting and had another bag of Newman O's (like Oreos) and said they were fat free so why can't Oreos be the same. Then Robin stated if you know they are bad for you, why don't you stop buying them. And he replied that isn't the point. Then Roberts started in about the McDonalds case in New York and he said that that lawsuit was just stupid and pointless and was right to be thrown out of court, at which point Robin tried her hardest not to laugh when she said "And your case isn't?"

[Guest CanadianChris]

They showed this on Pardon The Interruption this afternoon and laughed at the guy for the entire show.

 

Lawyers who bring such blatantly stupid lawsuits as this one should be disbarred.

[Guest Bannable Offense]

I saw this guy on Good Morning America this morning and Robin Roberts was trying not to laugh at this guy.  He is claiming Oreos are too fatting and had another bag of Newman O's (like Oreos) and said they were fat free so why can't Oreos be the same.  Then Robin stated if you know they are bad for you, why don't you stop buying them.  And he replied that isn't the point.  Then Roberts started in about the McDonalds case in New York and he said that that lawsuit was just stupid and pointless and was right to be thrown out of court, at which point Robin tried her hardest not to laugh when she said "And your case isn't?"

That was some high quality shit that just made the guy look like a complete tool. I knew he painted himself right into a corner when he blasted the McDonald's lawsuit and Roberts called him on it.

[Guest Texas Small Arms 09]

Well he still had his cheesy smile after Robin said that and she quickley ended this retarded segment. I honestly don't think he got the insult.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The tobacco companies actually tried to hide documents and facts about smoking being bad for you.

 

I say, if they've been smoking since those days then they can. You would have never known a few decades ago that cigarettes did damage.

People have known that smoking caused cancer since at least the 16th century and probably before. Books published in 1859 enumerate the risks and contain detailed reports of biopsies on tumours CAUSED BY SMOKING. Anyone still alive who claims that he never knew smoking is bad for your health is a liar, a fool, an illiterate, or all three. If you expect, no, depend on companies to inform you of the deficiencies of their own products, your lifespan shouldn't be too long anyway for the sake of the gene pool.

All of these submoronic lawsuits fall into the same category. I mean really, "I resent the fact that I have been eating that stuff all my life?" What sort of ignorant shit is that? Cookies make you fat. Fast food makes you fat. Smoking causes cancer. What's next? Alcohol makes you drunk?

 

NO FUCKING SHIT. When the fuck did this country turn into the United States of Pussies?

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

RR is on Good Morning America? Woah.

 

Oh, yeah. And this scumbag lawyer should be taken out and beaten...

[Guest Midnight Express83]

I can't believe I am agreeing 100% with Marney. And to add to that: This country needs to adopt the British law on stupid law suits.

 

IE: A robber breaks in your house, slips on the steps and breaks his legs, then sues you for that. He shouldn't be able to sue and his insurance shouldn't cover it. If you can't do the time for your crime, then don't do the crime.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

If you expect, no, depend on companies to inform you of the deficiencies of their own products, your lifespan shouldn't be too long anyway for the sake of the gene pool.

I think people DO want information on things that affect their lives. Without it, speculation runs rampant.

 

This is why kids think Mountain Dew shrinks your reproductive parts and adults think "OMG CHERNOBYL" when told of a nuclear power plant. Lack of education.

[Guest BDC]

[pissed off mode]

 

You better just keep your damn hands off my Oreos!

 

[/pissed off mode]

 

Honestly, can get anything more retarded? No offense to ppl on the board that are from California, but you have some stupid and I mean STUPID people out there. What someone said about this guy not catching that he got burned is probably pretty close.

 

"No, it's not the same! These are cookies, made with no meat or potatoes!"

[Guest Vyce]

They must have done a half hour on this on the program "Dayside" with Linda Vester on Fox News.

 

It even included this big fat bitch who was whining that MdDonalds is just as bad as the cigarette companies because they're food is so addicitive. That, and those dollar menu deals are just so enticing.

 

It made me think to myself, "Bitch, how fucking hard is it for you to just NOT eat the Big Mac?"

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I've been hearing for about a year or so now, that the next target by the social-gestapo after cigarettes was going to be junk food. The food nazis are here at last! Let's be smart Americans and prevent these people from gaining any sort of serious power.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

If you expect, no, depend on companies to inform you of the deficiencies of their own products, your lifespan shouldn't be too long anyway for the sake of the gene pool.

I think people DO want information on things that affect their lives. Without it, speculation runs rampant.

 

This is why kids think Mountain Dew shrinks your reproductive parts and adults think "OMG CHERNOBYL" when told of a nuclear power plant. Lack of education.

Your entire post is a complete non sequitur, of course, but I rarely expect anything more from you.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I was saying that I think people know what they do and don't want to eat because of those Nutrition Facts labels.

 

I was saying that originally cigarettes had little or no such warnings that they do today.

 

I was then taking the whole "people don't have proper opinions of things they're not informed about" by saying how maligned nuclear power plants are. This country could stand some more, but everyone automatically sees it as a nuclear bomb in their backyard.

 

 

However, putting aside all the tangents, I still say people were hardly as informed about smoking in the 40s and 50s as they are now.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

A majority of the US population knew that smoking was harmful in 1955. The poll could be found at this address on 8/6/02, but the link seems to be dead right now. In any case, my point was that people shouldn't rely on companies who profit from a product to dispense information on the detriments of their own product. That is called cutting into profits, aka stupidity.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I'm thinking Tom's behind this fascist platform. He had some choice language for cheetohs, oreos are next. It's the domino effect.

[Guest Some Guy]

What I want to know is does this proposed ban apply to just regular Oreos or Double Stuff as well? And does it also apply to the new Peanut Butter, Coffee, and Mint flavors? Cause if it applies to Mint then I going to fight this. Those fuckers are good.

 

But like all rational thinking people I don't eat ten bags of them a day, more like one bag a month, if that. Hence I remain rough, tough, buff, ripped, chiseled, and jacked or at least thin.

 

Another dumbass lawsuit that shouldn't even be allowed into court to be laughed out of it and it is no different from the McDick's, Tobacco, or gun lawsuits that have sought to penalize companies for making a product that people are actually willing to spend money on.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

Coffee Oreos are crazy good, I mean, it's not even right how good they taste.

Lawsuits over this crap makes me sick, by the way.

[Guest DrTom]

I'm thinking Tom's behind this fascist platform. He had some choice language for cheetohs, oreos are next. It's the domino effect.

Ze platform callz for ze comzumpzhun of Oreoz by everyone. Oreoz are awezome, vhile Cheetoz eat deeply of ze man-azz. Anyvun who tries to take avay ze Cheetoz vill be shot in heez kneecapz, zhen zquazhed by ze zteamroller. For ze Fatherland~

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Rather than infect this folder with your "Orange Solution," I'll halt this argument and motion that it be kept in the food folder.

[Guest snuffbox]

jesus fucking christ.

[Guest Slapnuts00]

I have a strange craving for Oreos and cigarettes now...

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

my point was that people shouldn't rely on companies who profit from a product to dispense information on the detriments of their own product. That is called cutting into profits, aka stupidity.

The government expects McDonald's to have a big sheet of paper at the ready with all the fat contents of their burgers. How's that any different?

 

Although honestly, I can't tell if you're trying to say that companies shouldn't have to make public the risk in their products, or that consumers should just be more skeptical about it. If you can clear that up it'd help a lot.

 

I went to archive.org and looked up the link you gave me (the archived copy is here), and the first poll is the question "Does smoking cause lung cancer?" and sure enough, no was always either winning or near-tied until the mid 60s when (according to the next page in that list) labels were added in 1966.

 

The second question is "Is Smoking Harmful?" and harmful is defined as "asthma, or shortening of breath, or that smoking was generally "bad" for the lungs or heart." No amount of promises and propaganda from smoking companies could cover up the fact that millions ofAmericans have what we've dubbed "Smoker's Cough," and I don't think things were any different back then either.

 

Altogether, only 6% of Americans in 1954 mentioned cancer of any kind as a health risk of smoking. Another 36% mentioned serious health effects such as asthma, or shortening of breath, or that smoking was generally "bad" for the lungs or heart. A majority of Americans—55%—told Gallup that smoking caused a variety of non-life-threatening problems such as coughing, sinus irritation, ulcers, nervousness, and bad breath as well as general complaints such as fatigue.

 

When asked again by Gallup in 1999, the numbers were markedly different: 33% of Americans mentioned cancer and 74% mentioned a serious health risk of one or another kind, including lung and throat cancer.

 

So, here we are again.. In the 50s, most people assumed a perfectly healthy man/woman could smoke and not shorten their life, although they may be inconvenienced in their daily lives as an effect.

 

I'm not too sure what you proved here.