| Author |
Message |
    
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 627
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 12:42 pm: | 
|
Just like the Energizer Bunny, frivoulous litigation just keeps going and going and going....
First smokes, now Cokes
By Walter Olson, WALTER OLSON is a senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute. This article is adapted from the Winter 2006 issue of City Journal.
GET READY for the next mass-tort crusade: protecting our kids from the ravages of Big Cola. According to news reports, a group of lawyers is gearing up to file lawsuits that will seek to blame Coke, Pepsi and others for obesity, tooth decay and other childhood health ailments. An article in the Boston Globe Magazine has called it part of a "national legal movement to make soft drinks the next tobacco." Instead of tar and nicotine, we'll be hearing about corn sweeteners and caffeine; maybe Dr. Pepper can stand in as the new Joe Camel.
Ridiculous? More like inevitable. For some time, a noisy campaign has been underway to portray the food and beverage industry as the villain in the nation's ongoing battle with the waistline. Without the snack hucksters' machinations, it seems, we'd all eat raw bell peppers and be reed thin.
Backed by "progressive" foundations, nutrition advocates are demanding a national obesity policy aimed at changing our collective diet, by force of law if necessary — or quite possibly by force of litigation. As one advocate, Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, put it: "If someone is saying that a 64-ounce soda at 7-Eleven contributed to obesity, that person should have his day in court."
That brings us to Northeastern University law professor and associate dean Richard Daynard, point man in the forthcoming courtroom onslaught against fizzy drinks. Long quoted in the media as a cheerleader for tobacco lawsuits, Daynard has now set out to assemble a legal strike force to file obesity actions. He wants to duplicate the success of the tobacco campaign, whose strategies included invoking "the children" and launching scores of suits on novel legal theories in hopes that one would stick. The litigation culminated in the 1998 settlement in which cigarette makers agreed to alter marketing practices, pay oodles to state governments (financed by hiking cigarette prices) and — not incidentally — fork over upward of $10 billion to the lawyers who had organized the suits.
The first of the new soft-drink suits — set for filing in Massachusetts over the sale of soda in school vending machines — has been delayed, for a comical reason. Daynard says that it has taken longer than expected to line up the right Bay State family to serve as client, even though his allies have placed newspaper ads asking parents to step forward. (Shouldn't he be pretending, at least, that aggrieved victims of Big Cola are pounding on his door, eager to sue?)
But at some point, a plump plaintiff will be onboard, and it'll be off to court. So should we laugh at these lawsuits? After all, Round One — the suits by obese customers against McDonald's and other burger chains — drew derision from the general public, an overwhelming 89% of whom in a 2003 Gallup poll opposed letting people sue over fattening foodstuffs.
This time around, though, the lawyers have selected targets more shrewdly. Restricting soda sales in schools has proved popular with the general public. California has a statewide ban in its public schools.
It's worth noting, though, that the bans might not make much difference in the problem of childhood obesity. Most soda (99%) is sold outside schools, according to an industry analyst. And fruit juice (a typical replacement) is hardly slenderizing, especially compared with the diet soft drinks popular among teens.
Still, the lawyers might well coax a settlement out of the soft-drink firms. The real leverage that this kind of litigation affords often lies in the threat of obtaining, under court order, reams of internal documents from the opponents' files and making them public. The two companies that dominate the soft-drink industry are extremely sensitive to negative publicity about their marketing practices.
Further, Coke and Pepsi wouldn't necessarily be averse to granting some of their critics' demands. In fact, a settlement that let them reduce the vast sums they spend on marketing might be in their interest, conferring a collusive benefit otherwise unobtainable without violating antitrust laws. Some economists believe that the curbs that the tobacco settlement placed on cigarette ads boosted tobacco firms' profitability.
Daynard's financial stake in all this is going to deserve reporters' scrutiny too. Back in the heyday of tobacco litigation, news reports portrayed him as an academic well-wisher of the suits, with no mention of his monetary stake in them. After other tort kingpins brokered the $246-billion settlement with the states, however, Daynard claimed that he had an oral agreement with the lawyers that entitled him to 5% of their fee haul — $150 million or more. The attorneys denied making such a promise, and the dispute was later settled. Who needs Coke and Pepsi to bring commercialism to the schools? It looks as if Daynard & Co. are already doing a decent job of that.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1511
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 1:05 pm: |
|
parents looking to blame everyone but themselves. you dont want your kid to get fat or tooth decay, dont give them soda or fast food.
this lawsuit represents a complete abdication of personal responsibility. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3930
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 1:20 pm: |
|
I agree. If you think drinking soda is beneficial, you're crazy. It's insane. Just don't drink it, and don't give it to your kids.
|
Mayor McCheese
Supporter
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 824
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 1:24 pm: |
|
This has inspired me, I am going to go on a 10 Big Mac a day diet that I will wash down with a soda. In 6 months I will sue McDonald's and the soda industry. I will be rich. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2982
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Sorry, Mayor, but you might not get fat enough to sue, unless you add lots of fries and fried apple pie. Read this one:
Wisconsin Man Finishes 20,000th Big Mac
July 21 - Fast food has plenty of fans most of them are no match for one Wisconsin man, though.
Don Gorske loves McDonald's Big Macs and Monday he ate his 20,000th sandwich.
That's right, Gorske has consumed 20,000 Big Macs since 1972. He says he eats at least one a day and hasn't gone more than 8 days without his fast food favorite in 32 years.
Gorske's 20,000th big mac meal wins him a world record. Even with all those Big Macs the 6' record holder says he maintains his weight at about 170 pounds.
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=2069569
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4312
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 10:49 pm: |
|
What they're trying to do which is very admirable is get soda out of schools. Soda machines have no place in a cafeteria. Schools should provide milk, juice or water -- period. |
Virtual It Girl
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 3937
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 7:40 am: |
|
Agreed there too Tom. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2988
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 9:11 am: |
|
Juice is often as full of sugars and carbs as sodas--in fact, they have more than diet sodas. |
Elgato
Citizen
Username: Elgato
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 9:38 am: |
|
SLK, Forget the sugar and caffeine. It's the genetically altered corn syrup and the aspartame in the diet sodas that we should be more worried about. Try a search on aspartame and its dangers and how it got there in the first place. Makes for interesting reading. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 10:07 am: |
|
Parents aren't looking to blame everyone but themselves, I maintain. They're fighting an uphill battle even if they are educating their sons and daughters about healthy food choices.
Children and teenagers are such a profitable market for Coke and Pepsi that they are constantly bombarded with visual appeals.
Parents may not want their children to be drinking these products all the time, but they have no real tools to use against the constant barrage of advertising.
In addition, these products are rarely consumed by themselves but mostly consumed with potato chips, fritos, doritos, or other equally unhealthy products. So you increase the risk of obesity, health and dental problems, and the long-term effects of poor dietary choices.
Then the kids become unhealthy adults. They submit medical claims and get expensive medical treatment.
Then my insurance premiums, and everyone else's, get increased as a result.
If we don't sell cigarettes in schools, why should we allow the sale of other products whose impact on our children's health is just as negative?
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1513
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 12:13 pm: |
|
yeah! lets create some more laws that take the place of effective parenting!
it's not the parents fault, it is televisions fault!
i say lets have parents continue the trend towards complete abdication of responsibility and have the government raise all of the children! |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1460
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 12:32 pm: |
|
As usual, the Libertarian is so doctrinaire that he/she? misses the point.
And who says that the lion's share of brand advertising is coming by way of the worn out medium of television? Is that the only thing that the word "visual" conjures up?
What 1950's world does the Libertarian live in? Still watching John Cameron Swayze "hopscotching the world for headlines," are we? |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1515
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 2:11 pm: |
|
so its all advertising that is evil? lets create some laws to limit advertising! lets create some more laws that restrict any language that might affect children! lets inhibit as much free speech as we need to to protect the children!!
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1517
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Central to any free and open society is the concept of law. Proper laws acknowledge the boundaries between people that we all recognise. And respect for such law is vital. But for laws to be respected they must be worthy of respect. While most people are happy to honour the rights of others, conflict arises when legislation impedes or tramples on what people see as their own private affairs.
Respect for law diminishes each time new legislation is passed which the government knows will be violated by millions of people. It is one thing to legislate matters like theft and entirely another to restrict activities like smoking on private property, such as in restaurants or bars. Smokers continue to ignore the legislation and in many places they are encouraged to do so by the owners of these establishments. Anti-smoking legislation turns millions of generally law-abiding citizens into law-breakers.
When legislation tramples on the private rights and private lives of citizens it encourages disrespect for law as a concept. When first proposed, the smoking legislation was criticised by opponents because it was inherently unenforceable. Now Police Commissioner Selebe has basically said the same thing. He made it clear that the police have neither the resources nor the inclination to enforce such legislation particularly since, in a crime-ridden society, they have more important things to do.
But already damage has been done. Respect for law as a concept has been diminished. So what, some people may ask? The answer is that it is important that everybody should believe that the law should always be obeyed. Improper laws inculcate a system of values in the people that tell them that law itself is nothing more than the arbitrary whims of people who happen to hold power. The breaking of laws thus becomes commonplace.
But in between improper legislation there are laws that are worthy of respect: laws that protect lives, liberties and property. Unfortunately once a culture of law breaking is encouraged by unwise legislation it carries over all too easily to laws that are absolutely necessary if we are to live in a humane and civilised society.
Improper legislation, whether it be grotesquely intrusive like apartheid or unenforceable and annoying like the smoking laws, always leads to consequences further down the road. Once law breaking becomes commonplace and widely accepted, the distinctions between good and bad laws begin to fade.
The answer is not found in a vigorous enforcement of improper laws but in their repeal. Bad principles do not become good simply because they are enforced. In fact, harsh enforcement of legislation that is not generally considered to be legitimate will only compound the problem, the same way each wave of enforcement of apartheid compounded the resistance to the system.
Too many politicians take legislation lightly. They do not realise that they must walk a fine line. We need laws to protect legitimate rights like life, liberty and property. But when we over-regulate we put these legitimate rights at risk. Laws, like taxes, can easily be overdone. Taxes that are set too high encourage tax avoidance, discourage entrepreneurship, encourage capital flight and ultimately reduce tax revenues. Laws that over-regulate needlessly turn citizens into criminals and encourage a culture of law breaking. Unfortunately once that culture is created the distinctions between proper and improper legislation fades and all of us are worse off as a result.
The first and most important, and some would say only function of government is the protection of the lives, liberty and property of citizens. And there is virtually unanimous agreement that coercion may be necessary to accomplish this. After all, as Herbert Spencer noted: "Be it or be it not true that Man is shaped in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression and by aggression."
The prevention of criminal acts that violate rights is at the core of the justification of government's existence. But when government is seen as a vehicle to solve every social problem or resolve every conflict of values then the temptation to legislate excessively is impossible to resist. A chorus of special interest groups all descend on parliament singing the same tune: there ought to be a law. And parliament complies. But the core values of government become lost or hidden beneath ever-growing layers of legislation. The seeming paradox in all of this is that the greater the level of legislation the less respect there is for law. It is not just a paradox but a tragedy as well. And in general we would all be better off if parliament spent more time repealing legislation and less time passing new bills.
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1867
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 3:27 pm: |
|
I don't want soda being sold in vending machines in my children's schools. Other parents feel the same way. If the school board is so unresponsive that it takes a lawsuit to get action, that's the way we have to go. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1518
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 3:43 pm: |
|
where does the restriction of freedom end? |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1462
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 3:57 pm: |
|
the law of the Libertarian = 2 components.
1) reductio ad absurdum (which seems to be his/her style of verbal interaction)
2) consistent non sequiturs forced by slavish adherence to a doctrine.
Why not invoke instead public and civic responsibility? If we know that youngsters are easy prey for certain types of marketing, why don't we make sure that they aren't bombarded by it when they're at their most impressionable ages?
We try to keep drugs away from them and them away from drugs, don't we? Or is it Libertarian's view that only parents have the responsibility of keeping harmful drugs away from children and teenagers?
Where are the socially useful boundaries of Libertarian's doctrinaire utopia? |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1519
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 4:09 pm: |
|
since when is public and civic responsibility equal to excessive legislation and the restriction of choice through law?
when did it become an accepted norm to substitute parental responsibility for government oversight?} |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4313
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Libertarian, how much freedom do you want to give school age kids?
No matter how thorough a parent you are - and lord knows I haven't been as thorough as I wish - you can't go to school with them. We need the schools, which are supposed to serve us the citizens, to help us out on this one.
ESL, here's the labelling info for Minute Maid Orange Tangerine juice:
Quote:
Serving Size 8 fl oz (240 mL)
Amount Per Serving
Calories 110
% Daily Value*
Total Fat 0g 0%
Sodium 15mg 1%
Potassium 450mg 13%
Total Carbohydrate 27g 9%
Sugars 24g
Protein 2g Not a significant source of protein
Vitamin C 120% Calcium 35%
Vitamin D 25% Thiamin 10%
Niacin 2% Vitamin B6 4%
Folate 10% Magnesium 6%
Not a significant source of calories from fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, dietary fiber, vitamin A and iron.
and this is for Coca-Cola's Mello Yello
Quote:
Serving Size: 1 can • 12 fl oz • 355 mL
Amount Per Serving
Calories 170 Calories from Fat 0
% DV*
Total Fat 0g 0%
Saturated Fat 0g 0%
Trans Fat 0g
Polyunsaturated Fat 0g
Monounsaturated Fat 0g
Cholesterol 0mg 0%
Sodium 50mg 2%
Total Carbohydrate 47g 16%
Dietary Fiber 0g 0%
Sugars 47g
Other Carbohydrate 0g
Protein 0g 0%
Vitamin A 0% • Vitamin C 0%
Calcium 0% • Iron 0%
I'm disappointed I have to spell something like this out to you. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 4:18 pm: |
|
And who is talking about government oversight, except yourself? When did I mention it?
Your knee-jerk self-pleasuring always appears to assume that a) people believe that there is recourse only in passing new laws, and b) laws are bad.
Interesting view on the evolution of human societies, I'd venture.
And I believe you meant to say "when did it become an accepted norm to substitute government oversight for parental responsibility" rather than "when did it become an accepted norm to substitute parental responsibility for government oversight?"
Unless... unless... you were trying for irony? If so, it was cute, but does nothing to further the "discussion." |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 4:22 pm: |
|
So once again, I'll use that tried and true but sometimes overused saying from Thomas Edison ( or perhaps from sir Joshua Reynolds):
"There is no expedient to which a man will not go to avoid the labor of thinking."
I believe that applies especially to doctrinaire points of view and to those who hold them. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 641
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 4:30 pm: |
|
I tend to think Libertarians to be unrealsitic at times....
Why don't we keep this matter simple before it reaches the SC while celebrating our beloved democratic system? Let the parents of the School District vote on vending machines issue. If they say nay, I would hardly think anyone would consider the decision a violation of high schoolers civil rights....except maybe Columbia HS chapter of the ACLU... |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 4:36 pm: |
|
"There is no expedient to which a man will not go to avoid the labor of thinking."
a quote that actually backs up my point of view on the matter.
Your knee-jerk self-pleasuring always appears to assume that a) people believe that there is recourse only in passing new laws, and b) laws are bad.
while your insulting description of my views does nothing to further the "discussion", i will say that i think that (A) is becoming more and more true, and that I have never said anything of the sort in regards to (B).
I think Scrotis' idea is the right one. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 644
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 4:54 pm: |
|
This is one time that I will firmly say that denying a 12th grader a Twinkee vending machine in his high school hallway is not violating his constitutional rights... 
Yet again, the way things are going judicially, give it some time...
The 14th amendment is pretty lucid as we have historically witnessed... |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1521
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 5:51 pm: |
|
This is one time that I will firmly say that denying a 12th grader a Twinkee vending machine in his high school hallway is not violating his constitutional rights.
i agree. why not do it through parental participation in the schools rather than through excessive and costly legislation? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4317
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 10:12 pm: |
|
for once I agree with both of you. Board of Ed -- are you reading? |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2436
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 10:53 am: |
|
Actually our school system won an award several months back for being one of the healthiest in the state in terms of the meal offerings.
I don't know anything about CHS vending machines. But I have a hard time imagining that parents would object to better nutrition there as well. For example how about instead of Twinkies we put in things like apples, low fat popcorn, or even Kellog's (All Bran) Honey Oat Bars whose nutritional label reads: Calories 130, Fat Cal 25, Total Fat 3g, Sat. Fat 0.5g, Trans Fat 0g, Cholest. )mg, Sodium 170mg, Total Carb 27G, Dietary Fiber 5g, Sugars 11g, Protein 2g, and 10% of DV of the following: Vitamins A, B6, B12, Iron, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin and Folic Acid. At work recently I let a kid choose between one of these and some junkier strawberry cereal bar recently and he chose this one and immediately asked where I got it and said he was going to ask his mom to buy some. This from a 12 year old! |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1650
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 5:08 pm: |
|
I don't see any upside to junk food in any cafeterias.
If children are going to school to get a well-rounded education - part of a good education is learning why eating whole foods makes them think better, feel better and perform mentally and physically at the top of their game.
Every year the kids get a talk from the fire department on fire safety, we teach them to look both ways and be cautious around streets and strangers, etc.
Statistically the risk of early death by a fire or a stranger abduction is far far less than the risk of early death due to obesity-related causes.
Denying or supplying Twinkies isn't the issue IMO, it's about giving our children the best possible template nutritionally and THEN allow them to bring their own junk food if that's their choice.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page