Jump to content

Silly, silly americans...


ezekiel

Recommended Posts

:)

I'd hope most of Americans found it stupid...of course I don't blame all of you nor even most. I'm not from the land of Liberty fries... ::sly

Didn't California ban softdrink vending machines on Schools and Campus grounds last year? The scary thing is that the lawyer might win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain parts of California generate a disproportionate amount of the stupidity in America. All of these articles can be found in the same San Francisco-area news service within about a week of each other:

"Lawyer Aims to Ban Oreos" This is the one that started the thread, but the general theme is that individuals are not able to take responsibility for their own actions and not eat Oreos that make them fat. Somehow Nabisco tricked them.

"Gun Companies Ordered to Pay Boy $50M" In this one, a kid crippled in a gun accident gets money from the gun manufacturers. Somehow, in the eyes of a California court, the accident is not the fault of the parents that left a loaded gun where a 12-year old could get it, but the fault of the gun manufacturer. Again, personal responsibility is not important; the one to blame is the one with the most money.

"War on Handbills Fought in SF" Here, the folks that have something to advertise are hiding behind the First Amendment and claiming that their littering is "free speech." When they post their posters, flyers, and other paper ads on any surface that they can find, they are just being good citizens and those that don't want the trash all over the city are trying to squash free speech. See the pattern? I can do anything I want and I'm not responsible for my actions!

"Homeless Man Set on Fire" And this is what you get when you don't bother to teach the kids anything like morality, responsibility, or accountability. Someone douses a homeless guy with gas and sets him on fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

\"Lawyer Aims to Ban Oreos\" This is the one that started the thread, but the general theme is that individuals are not able to take responsibility for their own actions and not eat Oreos that make them fat. Somehow Nabisco tricked them.

Though I agree with you on the other's this one has a point, it's not about eating it makes you fat it's about listing and reducing the amount of the more dangerous type of fat in the product... this sort of thing might give Oreos a bad enough amount of press that they reduce the stuff in their food, I say good on 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now don't go blaming the whole of the Bay Area, bub. There's plenty of us "normal" folks around here. (Marin County, Sebastapol and Berkeley are the glaring exceptions.)

While the suit sounds funny from the start, I agree with the thought behind it. (Follow through is a different matter entirely.) There's a growing (pun not intended) portion of the American youth that are obese. We can argue semantics over the issue, but a good number of consumer products companies have loopholes through which they can neglect to divuldge what would otherwise be pertinent information. Hopefully, this suit will change that.

-Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm...I dont think it is the Oreo's fault that there is a larger percentage of obese. Hell...if you going to sue anyone over parents not making their kids go out and play, you might as well sue video game companies and TV making companies...why not for for TV stations too while your at it...

(WARNING: EXTREMELY SARCASTIC RANT)

Ok...enough sarcasm. The big point i am trying to make with this is that i think its really shiatty that parents (and other people who want to be in the paper) are sueing large companies to make up for their total lack of parenting skills. Kid getting fat? Decision: become a parent and tell them to go out and play or Sue Oreoe's becasue they are fattening....more money from oreo's there...

Who here didnt know that Oreo's are fattening?

decision: Become a parent and lock your loaded guns up or Sue gun company for making the gun you bought that your kid shot himself with.

Its insane... People need to take responsability for what they do, as well as what their kids do.

(edit...added warning...))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right Bahamut Oreos aren't the cause of people being fat, but the lawer picked them because they'll recieve far more press about this than say a vracker company would. Again it's not about it being fattening it's about the LDL fat content, the one that is directly responsible for the bad cholesterol clogging up arteries. Personally I think the lawer could have gone for a different strategy, it makes this case sound exactly like the people sueing maccas (McDonalds) but that's too late, either way trying to get this comapany to reduce the amount of LDL in food is a worthy cause because the only benefit it provides is longer shelf life which is only good for the companies not the consumers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...

So stop waisting Nabesco's money and put that lawyers paycheck into lobbying for food companies to add that to their nutritional labels. Then send your kids out to play to work off them calories. Them getting fat is not nabesco's fault in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unless i'm mistaken, i believe there's more to the arguement than just it makes them fat. i believe it's supposed to be something dangerous to children in other ways, though i'm not completely sure what the deal is.

and legal presedence in court cases is often one of the ways used to foster change.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got that point...bad cholesterol. Ok...that still isent an excuse to throw cash away like that.

I can totally understand wanting food companies to list thoes fats. No problem there...but to ban oreo's? Cheese and crackers...all that does is make a whole bunch of dissapointed kids. If they would, say, take that cash and lobby to have thoes values added to the nutritional facts part on a package of food...I think that would make a whole bunch more sence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, couple things...

trans fat is more or less a poison to the human body, the issue isn't fat lazy kids, that's just what the media has latched onto.

the point of suits like this is to garner attention, raise public outcry and enforce some sort of regulation, not to win what is being sued for. (silly or not, not my call)

the bay area is a haven for renegade lawyers, the ones fight for principles not money. the renegades often do these suits pro bono, ie: no money for the lawyer (i know a few, they are real strange as it sounds)

and we do get some real nutty suits out here, but for some reason they're the only ones people hear about.

but hey, that's just the take of a crazy californian....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...I see the point you are making.

But how does sueing nabisco help stop that? Like I said before its a waist of money. It would save everyone time to just go to the FDA and say, "Hey...This stuff is bad for you. You need to wither make it illegal to use or list that it is used on their products." That is really the way this should have gone. Especially since the FDA is the one who controls everything that is used int he food industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think of it as pubicity, everyone knows about Oreo's so people will listen when they hear someone is taking their producer to court, it was a good choice to target nabisco due to their popularity. This bad press for Nabisco and the executives might decide that "We don't need this crap" and succumb to puplic pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Especially since the FDA is the one who controls everything that is used int he food industry.

one of the problems is that the FDA is already investigating the matter and it could be years before anything comes of it. after all, there are a lot of very powerful corporations who don't want to be forced into admitting that they use trans-fat because of the potential to lose part of their consumer base, and or don't want to have to change their manufacturing practices because that would cost a lot of money. and as we've all seen, corporations will literally stand by and watch people die (big tobacco/HMO's) and ruin lives (enron and the like) rather than risk that all important bottom line. i think it very likely that many of the food industry coporations are leaning on the FDA trying to slow any sort decision.

oh, if anyone is interested heavily in this topic, a great book to read is Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. it is an excellent and politically impartial study of the fast food industry and their practices and policies. i highly recommend it to anyone who's interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trans fat is more or less a poison to the human body, the issue isn't fat lazy kids, that's just what the media has latched onto.

So is beer (poison for the body) and prohibition didn't last long. I think it's naïve to think that this isn't for the money. At best the lawyer can hope for a settlement if Nabisco is in the least bit worried and at worst he gets publicity. I already know that the cream filling in Oreos isn't good for me which is why I don't eat too many...I think Bahamut has a point. If you look at tobacco, in Canada smoking is slowly becoming a rarity. This hasn't happened because of multi-billion (!!!) dollar law suits but because of massive sensibilization campaigns. I wouldn't have believed it five years ago but now I can actually go into pubs and notice that nobody's smoking (and this is in Québec!) Raising prices and taxes had been tried before...and failed. Blackmarket Oreo cookies in California's future maybe? (smuggled across canadian borders...ahhh, just like the good 'ol days!) Unlike the tabacco scandal, I doubt that Nabisco purposefully introduces trans-fat into its cookies for machiavellian plots to make americans obese. If it happens to be an ingredient who gives a hoot? Maybe that what makes Oreos better tasting than those other cookies...If I want to be healthy then, like bahamut pointed out, I'll do some Capoeira (I'm still aching everywhere actually, Capoeira's quite demanding!) and only drink (beer)/ eat (oreos) unhealthy stuff in moderation, which is the big secret really.

I didn't think Fast Food Nation was that good as I didn't learn much. So hamburgers have (perhaps literally) crap in it, workers have bad conditions, there're risks of meat contamination, etc....The only good point in the book, which is the point Bahamut is trying to make I think, is that powers lies with the consumers. If consumers don't buy their products they'll be forced to change. (not that I see people stopping to buy oreos 'cause its bad for them..) Laws can't solve everything, people need to take responsibility once in a while...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike the tabacco scandal, I doubt that Nabisco purposefully introduces trans-fat into its cookies for machiavellian plots to make americans obese.

The point is that Trans fat can be replaced with a less harmfull fat, the only downside is that the oreos shelflife will be reduced... Nicotine on the other hand can't be replaced with a less harmfull product, believe it or not there is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tobacco industries increased addictivity of there products (yes on purpose)...I think that's a BIG difference weighing against Tobacco...trans-fat, you said it yourself, increases shelf-life (which really isn't a minor point) Its not just to make you fat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is beer (poison for the body) and prohibition didn't last long. I think it's naïve to think that this isn't for the money.

i'm sure there is money involved, i was just trying to point out that some similar cases there is not. it goes both ways.

If you look at tobacco, in Canada smoking is slowly becoming a rarity. This hasn't happened because of multi-billion (!!!) dollar law suits but because of massive sensibilization campaigns.

i didn't say it was the sensilable way either, but it is one way. ::wink

I doubt that Nabisco purposefully introduces trans-fat into its cookies for machiavellian plots to make americans obese.

so do i, it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. i'm trying to say they may just be more concerned with market share than health concerns. not an uncommon occurence in america.

If it happens to be an ingredient who gives a hoot?

plenty of people, like i said earlier the point is to get attention. so many studies have been released stating that there are too many unnatural chemicals in the human diet and that it's starting to take it's toll on the health of the population. ever wonder where diabetes came from, some recent studies suggest it's seeming boom in the modern population is directly related to the amount of processed sugar that we ingest.

unhealthy stuff in moderation, which is the big secret really.

it shouldn't be, but for some reason most people don't seem to grasp it. it baffles me, but then again on an instinctual level humans are drawn to fats and salts. back in leaner times they were the keys to survival and in this era of modern abundance people are literally eating themselves to death. also, when so many food products contain so many different chemicals, it's hard to find a truly healthy product.

is that powers lies with the consumers. If consumers don't buy their products they'll be forced to change.

presicely, but first those same consumers must be made aware of the issue. and in the culture of apathy that prevades almost every aspect of american life it is hard to get people to care about anything much less how they'll be feeling in 50-60 years. the american public is so used to showy displays, that even the most earth shattering news, if not presented the properly dramatic way, will not be listened to because, "it's boring." it is a sad state of affairs, but that is the way it is.

oh, and someone asked if sodas were banned on school campuses in CA. they are not, california schools are hurting so badly for money that the majority of them have signed exclusive distrubution contracts with food and beverage corporations. a lot of people don't like it, but if it's coke machines or no school books, well most people are willing to sign on the dotted line.

- - - - -

disclaimer, i'm trying to keep this a friendly debate. if for any reason i came across as condescending, rude, or angry, i am not. i'm playing the devil's advocate (i does help that in this instance i'm on the devil's side ::smile ::wink ) so please no one take offense from anything i may have said, none was intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...