It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cheeseburger Bill passes 276-139

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
More and more news stories surface about people starting liability lawsuits against all sorts of company's ranging from cigaret manifacturers to fast food restaurants saying these company's are responsible for the fact these people either smoked to much, ate to much, drove to fast, drank to much or all sorts of other things. People often just do this to get a big payday from these company's in easy setlements or record rulings. This bill limits these liabilitie lawsuits when obesity is the claim. Obesity however is a huge problem, not only in the US, but all over the western world.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
The US House of Representatives has voted 276-139 for a bill that would prevent lawsuits against the food industry for making people fat.

The so-called Cheeseburger Bill bans frivolous lawsuits against producers and sellers of food and non-alcoholic drinks arising from obesity claims.

The bill supporters say consumers have to realise they cannot blame others for the consequences of their actions.

Critics say the food industry now does not have to worry about public health.

The vote came a day after a new study said obesity was likely to become the nation's biggest preventable killer, overtaking smoking.


These insane and crazy lawsuits are absolutely not the way

Ohio Republican Rep. Bob Ney
The study found that poor diet and lack of exercise caused 400,000 deaths in the US in the year 2000 - a 33% jump since 1990.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Imho this bill is correct and much needed.
Way to many people were doing the blame game while its their own fault that they eat unhealthy and don't do any excersize.

People are complaining that more and more power goes to the goverment every second of every day, but this is because Joe Public keeps bitching at that very goverment that everything that happens in their life is someone elses fault and the goverment should do something about it.

This always instead of waking up, seeing its their own fault that they are fat and lazy (not including the people with medical conditions causing obesity though) and will have medical problems now and in the future because they ate to much, spent way to much time brainlessly sitting in front of the tele and doing nothing for their health at all.

Mod Edit: Removed ATSNN Submission From Title.

[edit on 20/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
How about a bill to block frivolous legislation?

Just because the media creates a controversy reporting on every knuckle brained lawsuit that gets throw out of court, doesn't mean we limit the right to sue corporations then cheer like we just won the lottery.

We didn't. This is ridiculous. How about some numbers on this pandemic of frivolous lawsuits?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
How about I sue the fat guy because he had a heart attack and his hospital bills caused my health insurance rates to go up?

People have only so many God-given chips to play in this game of life. When they are gone, you're dead. Spend them wisely. In other words, take personal responsibility for your actions and stop it with the lawsuits.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Here's a better idea, JSO, why not sue the insurance company for creating a scam whereby they raise your rates and pretend it's the fault of the fatties or the smokers.

That would probably make you more money.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I think the FDA needs to step up to the plate and put restrictions on how much fat can be in food served at public places. Its their legal responsibility to keep the food and drugs we consume safe. I don't think anyone can mistake McDonalds for safe food.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
I think the FDA needs to step up to the plate and put restrictions on how much fat can be in food served at public places. Its their legal responsibility to keep the food and drugs we consume safe. I don't think anyone can mistake McDonalds for safe food.


Slippery slope, that one. I'd argue it's the quantity, not the quality that makes it "unsafe."

If Average Joe eats that ridiculous omelet sandwich (you know, the one offered to the startled lumberjack by the horrifying, plastic-headed "Burger King"), he will be fine.

The problem comes when Average Joe eats 3 a day. Every day. For a month.

Of course, if you eat 3 pounds of bacon a day, you may be in similarly dire straits.

But what is next? If I eat 50 green apples a day, I might crap myself to death, but it's not like most of us would consider apples inherently "unsafe." Why should fat be any different?

Also, should the FDA start controlling what you buy at your local grocer? You know, just to be sure you don't eat anything unsafe? Maybe they could start issuing ration stamps to everyone. They could put Little Debbie on the front, and you could only buy one snack cake per week.

And that opens another can of worms. Who can agree on the "safe" amount of anything? Atkins said you could have all the protein you want, but some doctors have said it is unsafe.

Should the FDA be responsible for determining the specific diet regimen for each and every one of us individually? Will you pay the taxes for that?

No, for my money, I think the FDA should stick to ensuring that specific ingredients aren’t poisonous. Like packing peas in formaldehyde, which once was the common practice.

An interesting note on that, the reason (in the U.S.), why many of our grandparents and great-grandparents tend to be so brand conscious, is because they had to be or they would die. In the days of limited “food policing,” they had to stick to the brands they knew wouldn’t kill them, like the Del Monte peas that were packaged in water instead of formaldehyde, and the cough syrups that cured their coughs instead of shutting down their lungs.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
If the FDA can place limits on the sale of cold medicine I don't see why they can't limit the fat content of fast food. I'm not saying either are right. I'm saying if you are going to do the job you were created to do then do it consistantly. If the government isn't going to regulate the food served then they shouldn't regulate the liability the businesses face for serving it.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
This is scary... for one main reason

the worst one is that several fast food giants used Beef Thyroid tissue in hamburger meat during the last 30 years against a suggestion from the FDA.
They couldn't force them to stop, but could show it was dangerous in ways that were not understood at the time.

In other words... The fast food giants insisted on saving money (about penny per burger) and sacrificed the public safety... (they don't anymore due to overwhelming evidence)

there is still a chance that a Madcow type situation will be found (from exposure 8-20 years ago) that could kill millions of people...
It appears that this bill would protect the fast food giants from any public claim.

[edit on 20-10-2005 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I don't want the FDA telling me how much fat content can be in my food. If I want to eat 10 Big Mac's a day then that is my choice. And, I certainly wouldn't sue someone else for it.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
No it protects from frivolous obesity claims. It did not state all claims.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
But do you want to find out 5 or 10 years later that the fast food industry knowingly used bad meat to save money which resulted in you getting serioulsy ill and as a result of this legislation you'd have absolutely no way of getting compensation. Why go out of your way to deny people justice? If there is nothing to the claims then you should have no problem because the case would either be thrown out of court or a jury would find for the defendant. If they have done nothing wrong then there shouldn't be anything to worry about.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Let's not all jump off the deep end here. People should not have their rights limited if they do not directly infringe on anyone else. If people want to eat crappy food, that is their choice. I certainly don't condone it and rarely ever eat crappy fast food, but I wouldn't restrict someone's right to it either.

Smoking bans (in public space) are reasonable IMO because it directly affects those who choose not to poison themselves.

I guess on a personal level this new bill has a limited impact on my world since I don't plan on sueing anyone for my own bad choices.

Peace,

~Jammer



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

by Indy:
I think the FDA needs to step up to the plate and put restrictions on how much fat can be in food served at public places. Its their legal responsibility to keep the food and drugs we consume safe. I don't think anyone can mistake McDonalds for safe food.


I get your point . . . to a point.

IMO the day the FDA "controls" what is served in public places will be a sad day, to say the least. If that were to happen fat content should be the least of our worries.

If John/Jane Doe need the FDA to inform them as to healthy eating habits, I feel for them.

IMO most people realise the need for eating "healthy" meals. However, far too many cave to the CONVENIENCE!!!

kids need to be picked up/dropped off . . . what about dinner?

appointent here/appointment there . . . what about dinner?

late out of the office, gotta make dinner for family . . . what about dinner?

The reliance upon CONVENIENCE is the bigger problem, NOT the contents thereof.

As always with any ability comes responsibility.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
jammerman would you feel the same if you found that the milk you serve your family has a chemicle additive in it that ended up causing severe illnesses in your family including death but you were unable to seek damages from the producers because the government had stepped up to protect them? The milk thing is a hypothetical situation. You have no idea what kind of stuff is being put in the food you purchase for your family every week. If someone has done something wrong and harmed you by accident or design you have the right to seek damages. They do not have a right to a profit regardless of the cost to the consumers. They are accountable for what they sell. If they put a lable on it that says "this product contains ingredient x and it is harmful to you" and you still eat it then its your fault. Since you really have no idea what is in the food you eat that shouldn't be the case.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
If the FDA can place limits on the sale of cold medicine I don't see why they can't limit the fat content of fast food.


Aha! And herein lies the essential problem. This can probably be cleared up with a simple question.

****NOTE TO ALL****
The following question is in no way intended to be derogatory, pejorative, insulting, whatever. Instead, it is for a point that is clear a few phrases down. Thank you.

That said, the question here is: Indy, are you a moron? Are you a blathering idiot?

I'd bet the answer is "no," or else you probably wouldn't be on this forum.

But, you seem to have fallen into a "moron trap." This is not your fault, anybody can fall in one, just like a Venus Fly Trap is not REALLY specific to flies.

If you are not a moron (which, again, I am sure you are not), you know that when you are full, you should stop eating. When you are hungry, you should eat a balanced meal. In fact, you probably know this because groups like the FDA put out FOOD PYRAMIDS that tell you how many servings and how many calories of what kinds of food you should eat.

In short, you have all of the basic information readily available to you, and you have a mind that is capable of making a (relatively) informed opinion.

With medicine, it is different, You are likely not a doctor, and have likely not attended pharmacy school. The government knows this, expects this, and regulates as such. Hence, the regulations on cough syrups (which contain myriad ingredients neither of us could pronounce).

WE NEED the regulation on medicine, because even those of us who are not morons are typically not educated enough to know the entire range of medicines available to us and their effects upon us.

And, if you want to get technical, you could even make a case that the Food Pyramid is actually just the same as the required dosage info on the back of you Tylenol.

The moron trap is that it is EASY to ask the government to keep us from being stupid. It is harder to ask ourselves to do the same.

For my money, if some dummy wants to blow dry his hair while he’s still in the shower, I don’t want him breeding anyway. I don’t think the government should be there mollycoddling us every day of our lives making sure we never do anything dumb. That’s what our Mom’s are for, and that’s what it means to grow up.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   

The moron trap is that it is EASY to ask the government to keep us from being stupid. It is harder to ask ourselves to do the same.


And that's what just happened here. We listened to the media manufactured nontroversy saying "these cases are out of control" then said please Government protect McDonalds from us, we're morons, we don't deserve the right to sue.

And the government said, gosh, that's a great idea, why didn't we think of that *wink, wink* I think we'll restrict your rights with some ridiculous legislation. God knows, we've got nothing better to do today.

Then the people cheer. Morons that they are.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

from Indy

But do you want to find out 5 or 10 years later that the fast food industry knowingly used bad meat to save money which resulted in you getting serioulsy ill and as a result of this legislation you'd have absolutely no way of getting compensation. Why go out of your way to deny people justice?

These are two different issues. Nobody is trying to withhold information here. If the food processors were knowingly withholding information that a product was dangerous, and continued to sell it to you, then they are responsible.

On the other hand, if I give you a quart of vodka to drink for breakfast each day, and you drink it, you should not sue them when your liver fails.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Hamburglar.. I understand your point. Yes there is a food pyramid out there. But as you aren probably not a pharmacist or a doctor you are also probably not a chemist. Look at the ingredients in so many foods purchased today. What is all that garbage? How do you know what is good or bad? How bad is yellow dye #5? Will too much of it make you sick? How much will it take? How do you know that 10 years from now it won't be discovered that this dye was known to be harmful yet for years we were eating this in food because someone didn't want to spend the money to make a safer product. There is no way you could have known it was harmful. Should you be denied your right to compensation because someone else feels they have a right to unlimited profits?

Its not just about the fast food industry. Yes people are dumb and will always do dumb things. But when you establish a system that keeps businesses unaccountable at this level then you open the door for them to be unaccountable at higher levels. Where do you draw the line?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Uh to the guy who didn't read the article, this keeps fat people from suing McDonalds because they are fat... If the guy eats a burger and gets food posioning he can still sue. If he eats bad meat and gets sick, he can still sue. If he breaks in a eats 50lbs of grease/fat and has a heart attack his family still can sue.

But if he eats 10 Big Macs a day every day and never excercises he can't sue because he is fat.

Just clearing it up for the "But I wanna sue!" guy who didn't seem to read the article.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   
And if you try and sue because you got fat because you were eating 10 a day then its the judges place to toss the case out. However if people find out down the road that McDonalds was adding a chemicle into the food to get you addicted then you should have a right to sue. Putting a law like this in place basically gives companies the right to do all kinds of unethical things to the food you eat and you'll have no way of seeking damages. Thats the whole point of a judge and jury. You let them decide if in your case you were harmed. This bill is nothing more than an attempt do obstruct justice.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join