LAT/AP: House Votes to Ban Obesity Blame Lawsuits

[DeepModem Mom]

House Votes to Ban Obesity Blame Lawsuits
By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON -- The Republican-controlled House voted Wednesday to shield fast-food chains from lawsuits that blame them for making people fat.

Nicknamed the "cheeseburger bill," the measure stems from lawsuits accusing McDonald's of causing obesity in tens of thousands of children. The food industry has asked Congress and state legislatures to protect it from liability, and so far, 21 states have agreed....

***

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said potential costs from the lawsuits threaten the food industry and its 12 million employees and raise food prices for consumers....

***

The measure, which won approval on a 306-120 vote, would prevent class action lawsuits blaming restaurants and food companies for weight gain or obesity. The House passed a similar bill last year, but the Senate ran out of time to act.

Two-thirds of American adults are overweight, and nearly one-third are obese, while obesity among children and teenagers more than doubled in the past 30 years, according to government estimates....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top15oct20,0,313065.story

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Why not just ban civil litigation tout court?

Imagine if the Congress in the 1970's banned tobacco litigation?

Civil suits should be evaluated based on their individual merits. What the Congress aims to do here is take the decision away from juries (the people), and create blanket immunity that is based not on facts or laws, but on an ideological construction of agency. These lawsuit bans are outrageous, and an affront to our tradition. They strip power from people and place it in the hands of corporations.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. I was having the same thoughts -- whatever the issue...

it doesn't seem right to ban lawsuits.

[daleo]

12. Well said.

This is another stripping away of common law rights.

[alarimer]

21. You are right

First gun manufacturers, now fast food joints. What companies will they protect next? Big Pharma, big agribusiness??? A lawsuit should be decided on it merits or lack thereof.

On edit I think that the will eventually use "tort reform" to protect corporations from obeying environmental laws as well. It is through the use of such lawsuits that environmental organisations have forced compliance with the Endangered Species Act, for example.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. I'm overweight

but I can't blame McDonald's. If I magically could remove McDonald's pounds from me, I might lost 10 or 15 lbs. For 10 years or so I would eat there once or twice a week.

In my case it is MUCH more due to the love of my computer. I should be out gardening.

[Gman]

4. Now there's an issue of high national importance

Step right up, get out your checkbook, make it payable to this and that charity and you've got your bill passed.

Jeez, what a frickin' joke of democracy.

[LisaL]

5. If they ban lawsuits against gun manufacturers, why not fast food?

I mean, nobody is making anyone to eat fast food at gun point.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Why not ban slip and fall lawsuits?

Don't they just increase the insurance businesses have to pay, and thus affect prices and workers? Why not ban all lawsuits? Think of the economic benefits!

:eyes:

[calico1]

8. Right!

Here is the problem I have with those fast food places. Yes, its true no one puts a gun to your head and makes you eat the stuff. But some people believe (and I don't doubt it) that fast food companies and junk food manufacturers put stuff in their junk much like cigarette companies did, to make people come back for more. And with lawsuits banned against fast food places, what else might they do that people won't know about? Rather than banning lawsuits, how about doing a better job of throwing out frivolous cases? Isn't that where the problem really is? Lets not get too eager to be on the side of big business.

[KittyWampus]

17. More Than Food Contents. It's The Millions Spent Annually Advertising

their garbage. Those ads aren't for name recognition. It's to plant an image of wholesome family fun and nutrition in the public's consciousness.

It's called brainwashing. And if it didn't work, they wouldn't be spending millions doing it.

[depakid]

7. Special rights for Republican contributers

and even Dems go along...

Isn't there something wrong with that equation?

[gmoney]

9. My favorite line...

From the Yahoo version of the story at least:

"You cannot litigate personal choices and lifestyles," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.


...unless those choices and lifestyles include sexual preference and practices, birth control, free artistic expression, what religious beliefs will be made public policy, etc.

If you're fat, it's not because of McDonald's, but if you're a sex offender, it's because of internet porn. Makes perfect sense to me. :sarcasm:

[mongo]

10. Well said

And it's amazing the difference in thought about "personal responsibility" even on DU when you look at the fast food Vs porn issues.

But of course pornography is "addictive" :sarcasm:

[NorthernSpy]

11. ironically, overweight people live longer...

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/15/1861

And thinness is a risk factor for a number of serious or lethal diseases and conditions. So it's only a matter of time before someone sues Jenny Craig and the makers of diet soda.

:eyes:

I can't help it that it delights me whenever some big, shrill public hysteria gets the debunking it deserves -- leaving those who fomented the hysteria deservedly eggfaced.

[daleo]

13. I wouldn't say that exactly.

Here is what the authors themselves say in a letter, in the JAMA link.

Underweight, Overweight, Obesity, and Excess Deaths—Reply

"We did not, however, conclude that underweight "increased" or that overweight "decreased" mortality, as they suggest."

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/5/552-b

I think the jury is still out on this one, although I agree that there probably has been an obsessive concern about relatively small degrees of "overweight".

[Seabiscuit]

16. Indeed, there's a world of difference between "overweight" and "obese".

I don't think anyone disputes that obesity is a health problem that can shorten one's life.

"overweight" is too vague a term.

[NorthernSpy]

23. actually, "overweight" wasn't a vague term in the context of the study

Overweight was defined as BMI above 25 and below 30. That is the CDC's definition of "overweight". And it is this overweight category that has the lowest mortality rate.

"Mild obesity" -- defined as BMI =/>30 and <35 was also not associated with an increased risk of death: the relative risk in these cases was less than 1.0 when compared to the "normal weight" group. So there are no grounds for assuming that it is only those who are just a teeny, imperceptible bit overweight who enjoy lower risks -- which was of course how the news reports concerning this study commonly spun it.


It's shocking what data can do to a perfectly good hysteria...

[KittyWampus]

19. That study was complete rubbish. It merely looked at age of death and

weight. Totally meaningless and misleading. AND it came out the same time this potential law started getting pushed.

If a number of the people in that study died of long term illness like cancer they would be underweight... thus easily skewing the resultant hypothesis. Kind of like when Bill Gates walks into the room the average net worth of EVERYONE in the room goes up.

Furthermore, overweight people have more health problems and would be going to doctors more often and getting monitored.

Too bad so many DU'ers fell for that bogus study. It is intentionally misleading and suspect especially since it came out simultaneously with the lawsuit and a front page article in the NYTimes that bascially had health 'experts'saying it's useless changing your dietary habits when trying to effect your overall health.

[NorthernSpy]

22. wrong -- the results hold even when smoking and weight-altering illness...

... are taken into account.

As Flegal points out:

If these biases due to illness-induced weight loss or residual confounding by smoking or prevalent illness at baseline had been operating, one would expect to see a lower relative risk for underweight (closer to 1) and a higher relative risk for overweight and for obesity after controlling for baseline health status, smoking, and early deaths. However, the relative risks did not follow this pattern. Thus, these analyses of the effects of exclusions and of stratification by health status for the combined data set did not suggest that the results for the full data set were affected in any important or systematic way by residual confounding due to smoking or to prevalent illness at baseline. These analyses did not suggest that Flegal et al (2005) had overestimated the risks associated with underweight or underestimated the risks associated with overweight or obesity.

[LisaM]

14. The food industry should be held accountable for some things

like changing the ingredients (e.g., cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup) in foods and then expecting consumers to think that they can eat the same things with the same consequences. I personally also have an issue with portion size and food waste, though at least THAT I can monitor myself. Other under-the-radar things are antibiotics and hormones in chicken, what cattle is fed, the type of oil they cook french fries in, and so on. All these things affect obesity, and there are tracking statistics that show obesity rates soaring when companies started using high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar. And since most fast food chains make almost all of their profit on pop, I think they do have some culpability.

[Debi]

15. Congress should ban divorce and custody cases as well

Think how much that would clean up our judicial system so we can get back to the important stuff...like banning abortions and gay marriage! :bounce:

[Julius Civitatus]

18. Soon, American corporations will be shielded from all legal action

If the Republicans get their way, corporations will be ABOVE THE LAW. It's starting to look that way.

[depakid]

20. And with the comments I see here- that would suit many just fine

Don't want a nanny state, now do we.

It's our "personal responsibility" not to deal with fraudulent or negligent corporations.

[MsKandice01]

24. Don't we have more important issues to tackle?

n/t

[NVMojo]

25. damn, what a bunch of efficient moral bastards ...

...of course, if we keep America fat, dumb and happy ...they can do whatever the hell they want ...people won't be smart and healthy enough to fight them ...

[GoddessOfGuinness]

26. While I don't think we can blame McDonalds for obesity,

I do think that the diet industry (including fast food operations that push quack "diet" fare) should be held accountable for misleading consumers.

It's my understanding that while fad diets often produce fast weight-loss results, dieters on average gain back even more than they lost.

[superconnected]

27. My problem with this is fast food like tobacco is now a product of

chemical engineering for you to get addicted to it.

They've gone past tasters and test groups, to make it appealing. Then there are the kids play areas designed to make kids feel abused if their parents don't take them there, which is part of advertising. Then there is the billions in advertising.

Sure the overweight people could just say no, but the companies are going out of their way to make sure peoples senses turn against them.

I don't eat fast food because I'm a vegetarian and I don't smoke. But I will trust the data I've read that the tobacco companies have intentionally put in drugs they know the human brain gets dependencys on. Why would I trust fast food more than tobacco. I won't.

I think they're all a pack of wolves just like the credit card companies - stalking people. Then of course blaming the victim if a law suit arises.