House OKs "cheeseburger" bill

House OKs "cheeseburger" bill barring lawsuits blaming the food industry for making people fat.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday easily passed the so-called "cheeseburger bill" that would block lawsuits blaming the food industry for making people fat.

<http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051020/od_nm/congress_fat_dc;_ylt=AuUEtWUCedcnQtfHKYl76zDtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA-->


-------------------

Great so now McDonalds and all the others can put all the stuff into their food they want so it tastes really really really good and makes your brain want more and more and more of that food.

I take it as a fact that certain foods really can make you addicted to them and take other effects on your psyche and body functions.

I take as speculation, with strong supporting evidence.

Still, you control what you buy. I'm all in favor of this bill as I think those were frivolous lawsuits.

If you shovel food into your face, you take responsibility over its effects on your body.

Is no one in favor of personal responsibility anymore?

... the obesity levels among adolescents now as compared to when my generation were kids ... comes - IN MY HUMBLE OPINION - from parents who over-Nintendo, over-Happy Meal, over-indulge their kids rather than telling them to get outside and play, use their imaginations and their muscles, and who don't have time or energy to cook real meals (which I blame on da capitalist system in part) ....

Put the Whopper and the Gameboy down, take your kids out to an orchard and spend a couple hours walking around, TALKING TO THEM, climbing ladders, picking apples ... and have that for a snack instead.


JMHO.

This is just more tax and spend billing and wasting of money that could be used other wise. So they're going to cut programs for helping students get into college and elderly with medicine they're doing this shit. :eyes:

of fast food... they do change the brain physiology to a point


Now how much it is the nature of just easting (yes your brain tells you when yuo are full) and how much it is the effect of the food (and additives) is still open for discusion.

The problem with this is that no studies will be carried out and they should....

There is personal responsibltiy, but there is also CORPORATE responsibity, and what we are seeing right now is the glorification of the coporation on the backs of people....

Look what they are doing, is makng sure that the corporations will have no reason to have any social responsibilty.

Jesus, some people just have to take responibility for what they do. It's a no brainer people!

So, is a kid responsible for what he eats? And when that kid grows into an adult, suffering from obesity, diabetes, high-blood pressure, heart disease, etc, all before the age of 30, do we still say to him, "Oh, you should have been more careful with your diet"?

It's not a no-brainer, and this is not a cut-and-dried issue. This law is corporate protectionism at its worst, and knee-jerk responses do nothing to stop the problem of our poisoned populace.

It goes back to taking responsibility.

if they had passed a bill protecting the tobacco industry would you also be going like this?

As I said in a post, there is evidence of the addictive property of fast food... studies should be made to determine if this is an addictive personalty (they do exist) or an additive on this junk, or a combination of the two?

You can scream all you want personal responsibility, which is the REPUBLICAN mantra every time corporations are put under the microscope, or face the fact, there may be more needed to be done by us as a society... and COrporations should NOT get free rides either. Which by the way, is the REPUBLICAN way.

because people can't or won't take responsibility for themselves or their kids.

My parents instilled in me what I needed to know to make it through life without someone else telling me what I should or should not do.

Like I said the bottom line is responsibility for your own actions.

that you can prove it was a corporation doing it.

Ok usually the cons bring this mantra out when they want to protect the corps. Get it through your head, for them it is not about personal responsibility, but about protecting the rich and the corporations from people like you. If they could, they would have protected FORD over the Pinto, because it was YOUR responsibility to know the car would go up in flames if rear ended.

that is the problem, they are taking your upbringing and using it against you. Personal responsibility for CCNservatives means, protection from the little people.

I say, let the research be done and find out... just how adictive the crap is...

a LOT of people are not the same way,
and corporations will seek them out to purposly exploit them. its criminal in my opinion.

also in my opinion... your opinion is self-centered and crap.

is coming from

By the way, that place they do hold people accountable, but they also tend to hold the organization accountable

You seem to have a problem with CORPORATE responsibity and a REPUBLICAN congress giving them a pass...

The code stands for... freedom of action to corporations

...just as soon as corporations lose their multi-billion dollar advertising budgets.

But face it, this is not a nation of "free choice." Free choice and personal responsibility go hand in hand, but when we have billions of dollars being spent to restrict choice and influence decisions, then there is no "personal responsibility." Whenever I go shopping for groceries, its a constant struggle to buy anything that doesn't contain high-fructose corn syrup, artificial flavorings and colorings, preservatives, etc. When you have 20 bakers of bread represented in the bread aisle and every one uses high-fructose corn syrup, then there is no choice. There is no "personal responsibility." Period.

You're correct about corporate responsibility, though. There isn't any. If anything, the tobacco lawsuits should have alerted the US to the addictive nature of processed foods packaged and marketed "attractively" using billions of dollars and a noise machine like the Corporate Media.

they are now protecting themselves under the cover of "personal responsibity." People need to learn to decode conservative langauge, this means... freedom from lawsuits for the corporations.

They eat what they're given...

and hydrogenated oil-which is very unhealthy. Look at simple crackers and there it is, hydrogenated oil.

These are parents who were themselves raised on Happy Meals with all the toys and prizes and other toxic schwag that these corporate wolves in sheepskins are relentless pushing through all available channels.

How we eat is taught to us. I don't eat processed foods, box dinners, frozen meals, etc. This is because my family didn't have them in the house as I was growing up. Nearly every night, either my stepdad or my mother actually cooked food, and the family sat down at the table and ate dinner together. Allow me to add that both of my parents worked full-time jobs outside of our home. I have a family of my own now, and either my husband or I cook dinner for us. If cooking is too much work, and some nights it is, we'll have sandwiches, or buy a roast chicken, but we still make it a point to eat healthy food that is as unprocessed and as close to "the source" as we can get.

People cannot be blamed for learned behavior.

Corporations have the rights of persons in the USA. Therefore, they must take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for the products they offer to the public.

and it is not unusually for a mother to tell me her 2yo's favorite food are french fries.

My parents taught me and my brother pretty well to eat responsible and than when we got older it was up to us on what to eat etc. Your parents should teach you good eating habits while you're young.

but how about schools that are serving our children fast foods?

Gads, look at the sugar they put into every frickin' prepared product. I bought tomato soup for the first time in a long time the other day, savoring the possibility of a good bowl of soup on a chilly night. As soon as I tasted it, I spat it out. Loaded with sugar! WTF is the reason to put so much sugar in everything. And then if you buy the products without salt or sugar, it costs twice as much, or more.

Yeah, yeah, I know, make my own tomato soup. That's great for people who have time. Lots of people don't. The food industry is deliberately using fat and sugar to make up for the lack of taste in their crummy ingredients.

My point:
-----------
This bill is about protecting a corporation from legal actions.
This is like DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY !!



About responsibility:
---------------------
Responsibility for what you eat is ok
(although it's kind of difficult to be responsible when the border to addiction is crossed, or when can't afford healthy food because the fast food at the corner is the cheapest and the healthy food is expensive)


Lets say...
You drive around in a car.
Are you totally absolutely informed what components are in that car and which security flaw could get you killed sometime in the future?
No... you assume it's just a fine... and it even looks good!
Oh, sorry, you can't sue the manufacturer of that car, you're responsible for your security yourself and nobody forced you to buy that car


Responsibility is ok.
But people need to be INFORMED in order to be responsible.
Most aren't!!
Neither informed nor responsible.

I think that's a LOT more important than the "personal responsibility" meme that gets repeated over and over by people who don't seem to understand (or respect) the civil justice system.

If there's a case for false advertising- or for products liability, let a lawyer take a chance and try to make it. If he or she doesn't have the evidence- or if he files a frivolous action- then he or she loses time and money- and on top of that, risks court sanctions.

Why should the purveyors of fast (and admittedly unhealthy) food be treated any differently than any other business?

Is there a rational reason for that?

or is it just that they have tons of money to throw at Congress....

This is nothing more than LOBBYISTS making life easy for fast food CORPORATIONS.

on tv. Sure you can block it out or counter it with counter-messages to your subconscious. But that is a LOT of work.

McDonalds doesn't spend millions on ad campaigns to get name recognition. They do it to implant an image into the public's mind of wholesome family nutrition and fun.

Further, should a lawsuit proceed, that's how you get discovery to determine IF McDonalds does in fact add certain chemicals or knows its products as served are deleterious to our health.

It's not the eatery's fault that people are too lazy and stupid to be informed consumers. Time to not always have Auntie Government holding our hands.

their ingredients or what they know about the effects of those ingredients.

If you buy Ford car with a defective door lock, get into an accident where you're thrown from said door even though you tought it was locked is it YOUR fault because you didn't inform yourself of said defect WHICH Ford's CEO's know about but refuse to recall the cars to replace the lock?

and so did my daughter.

If you eat at McDonald's more than a few times a month, then you have a serious problem. Everybody knows McDonald's food is bad for you. If McDonalds is specifically harming people and making their food addictive on purpose, chemically in some way. That's illegal. As it should be. But allowing people who can't control their desires to win money from the product they used to destroy themselves is ridiculous. It's common sense, I think it's a waste of time that we have to even create laws like these. Shield laws for industries are usually a bad thing, but in this case I'm not so sure it's wrong.

There was one case I remember reading about earlier this year or late last year about a woman who was trying to sue McDonalds because her kid got fat! Uh DUH! Common sense people! If you're going to constantly eat at McDonalds (she was a working single mother) all the time and don't do any exercise etc. than of course you're going to get fat. There are other restaurants out there to take your kids such as those buffet bars that have home-made meals.

I can't imagine how anyone can blame a FF business for their own stupidity!

IF this is the only way to stop stupid, frivilous law suits, my guess is you'll see a lot more of them to come!

important issues. :sarcasm:

If it is my personal responsibility to choose my food wisely, then shouldn't the same hold true for anything else I choose to ingest?

For the record, I agree with the previous posters; I'm just raising the issue.

On edit: Why would a tobacco company or even a car company be held liable for the damage their product causes, but the fast food industry is shielded?

I also question why the fast food industry deserves this shield while others don't.

If they were debating making fatty food illegal, then your argument would fit. But they are not. A better comparison would be: "then is why is it legal to sue your drug dealer?" Of course, that isn't even a very good argument since drugs are a banned substance and fatty foods are not.

A lot of people (probably a majority) believe the tobacco company lawsuits are frivolous as well and should be disallowed. There is, however, a difference in that the tobacco companies have been proven to have conspired to conceal the dangers of tobacco. The fast food industry has, to the best of my knowledge, done no such equivalent.

And the car comparison fails because those who purchased a car with a flawed design did so believing the car was not flawed. Those who purchase hamburger and fries KNOW the hamburger and fries are fatty.

Drugs are illegal ostensibly because of the perceived harm they cause.

Tobacco companies used harmful additives to make their product more desirable, ie addictive. Fast food producers use harmful additives to make their product more desirable. I don't see a difference except that you can choose not to smoke; you have to eat.

As for cars, what constitutes a flaw? Is it incumbent on a automaker to build a car that is crash-proof? Absolutely, but if a car bursts into flames when someone ass-ends it at 40 mph, that's a result of improper use of the product, not a design flaw.

IMO most drugs shouldn't be illegal. I know heroin will kill me so I don;t use it. All making it illegal does is put people in jail. It doesn't even solves the problem. Some criminalization is necessary, for instance you get a ticket for smoking a joint on a public park bench, but putting people in jail for smoking it at aparty, or their own home? That crosses the line. OK back on topic....

the agricorp subsidies they give to the people that are poisoning our food supply and killing us with processed high fat high sugar bull shit that's cheaper than real food because we pay for it twice.

Given McDonald’s dominance in the food industry—it serves close to 50 million people globally every day—it wasn’t long before women’s concerns about diet and health began to hit the company’s radar with increasing regularity. In a sign that McDonald’s was listening, the company ordered its suppliers to stop using antibiotics and growth hormones in many of its meat products

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=413661&rl=1

fast food restaurant chain? I'd be all over that.

organic fast food franchise, with different types of veggie burgers, yogurt shakes and variety of salads....want to go into business?

we are the consumers, and apparently, American consumers aren't like those in Europe. If we changed our eating habits, McDonald's would change their menu, like they were forced to do in Europe. Apparently, most of use have been sold junk...remember the "pet rocks"? or how about "green slime?". It's a waste of money, but as consumers some of us seem to like "junk" instead of quality.

thinking it could offer organic meat burgers for the carnivores, organic veggie burgers and other fare for the vegetarians and vegans. Ogranic on the Go ? Organiburger? :)

when you eat fast food, or regular meat at the grocery store
for that matter, you ingest growth hormone that the animal ate.

When you drink regular milk, you drink milk from cows that get growth hormone.

Also the antibiotics in the feed make them grow faster, and may
account for why some antibiotic resistant bacteria are developing.

That is why these foods make people blimp out.

If you buy organic milk, even the 2% - it tastes
like cream.

You won't be able to drink regular milk again without tasting the chemicals in it.

corn syrup, etc.!) with lots of calcium and the kids & I love it. We keep milk around for cereal and very occasionally drink it w/ a meal.

Milk in MX, the Carribbean and Europe tastes creamier. Is it the lack of hormones etc.? In Aruba you can by bottles of irradiated milk that keep w/o refrigeration for a YEAR! Very handy when travelling with young children.

That would be a vast improvement.

On the road a great deal of the time and still view fast food as a last resort. And Mickey D's is at the bottom of that list.

For the same price as one of those combo-meals you can usually get a nice lunch special at an ethnic restaurant that is almost always locally owned.

Welcome to DU btw.
:hi:

Get your body used to eating regular and healthy foods and you'll soon find that fast food tastes like crap anyway and you'd have no desire to get fat off it.

They should write a bill that forbids the marketing of their unhealthy menus to children.

These restaurants must stop pushing french fries, cheeseburgers, milkshakes, and kiddie meals with toys. Many parents just give in to their children's whining demands these days, and these kids grow up to be fast-food junkies. They should be forbidden from sponsoring children's programming on television, forbidden from advertising in children's publications, forbidden from placing their "brand" in our schools, playgrounds, and public parks.

An adult is responsible for what they eat, but you can't say that about a child. And if that child grows up knowing only fast-food... well, then what? Is the obese person who was raised on junk food as responsible for his health at 25 years old as he was at 15? or at 5?

There's more going on here than frivolous lawsuits here. There is an underlying problem that's not being addressed. If Congress had passed a law protecting Big Tobacco from lawsuits because people should "know better" than to smoke, the outcry would be deafening. Why? Because for years and years the tobacco industry placed their product, image, and brands in every aspect of our life. They suppressed evidence that smoking was harmful to our health. Hell, even today we still have candy cigarettes for kids to develop their budding oral fixations with. I smoked my first cigarette when I was 16, and I didn't quit until I was 34; I always knew it was unhealthy, but I never was able to kick the idea that there was something "cool" about smoking a cigarette, and that made me cool too.

How is the fast food industry any different?

Very good point. And I would say that the fast food industry would have to fall under strict liability. Anyone can choose not to smoke. No one can choose not to eat.

And as long as I can remember (and the HS where my dad taught had a STUDENT smoking lounge) cigarettes have never been actually sold IN schools.

"No one can choose not to eat."

:applause:

Yes these bills were in response to some state being wrongly hurt by someone spreading rumors about a farm product being harmful. I forget what it was, maybe irradiated apples.

Still, it infringes on people's freedom of speech. If someone does spread a rumor, sue them for liable, don't punish everyone.

I'm getting tired of the government playing god by painting over issues with a huge brush. Let people sue McD! We know that these lawsuits have no merit, mostly. What about the person who was genuinly hurt by McD's food. Remember the case where they used the wrong kind of oil and said it was vegtable oil?

What's next; the government outlaws lawsuits against Wal-Mart for changing people's time cards?

I wonder if the bill is unconstitutional because it doesn't let people seek damages for corporate America's negligence.

If the government had more laws protecting the public maybe this would be ok, but with our current laissez-faire approach, they really have no business telling American who and under what circumstances they may sue a huge corporation that is harming America!! And we know damn well that their food sucks!!!

McD's can put the nutritional information of their food on their salads, but not their burgers. Everyone knows McD's is bad for you, but not many people truly understand how much fat & crap is in one of their sandwiches...I think if they don't want people suing them, they should put the nutritional information front & center. Until then, I don't believe the majority of Americans truly understand the poison they're eating when they chomp this crap down.

http://cu.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=NIMF_petitionFDA&JServSessionIdr012=1wznrn1ef1.app5a

Petition the FDA to end feeding of all mammal remains to cows and prevent the spread of Mad Cow disease!

Mad cow disease has arrived in the United States. The USDA confirmed in June that a cow born and raised in Texas had the deadly brain-wasting disease-- the second case found here. Yet incredibly, the Food and Drug Administration refuses to end the practices that will keep the disease from spreading.

Mad cow disease is spread through animal feed. A couple of decades ago, the beef and dairy industries decided that cows, normally grass-eating vegetarians, would produce more if they were routinely fed the processed remains of other cows, pigs, chickens, road kill, restaurant wastes, and wastes from the floor of chicken coops.


Help us reach our goal of 30,000 signatures!

Current: 6712

After the outbreak of mad cow disease in England in the mid-1980s that eventually affected hundreds of thousands of cows and killed 150 people, scientists figured out that animal protein could transmit the disease. And humans contract it by eating infected beef.

The Food and Drug Administration has just made a proposal to eliminate some but not all the risky feeding practices, and asked for public comment. Half-measures are not enough! We cannot let mad cow disease get even a toehold in the United States, given its deadliness and ability to spread.

Join us in signing a petition to the Food and Drug Administration (Docket No. 2002N-0273) to end the feeding of ALL mammal remains to cows, including chicken coop floor wastes (feathers, feces and spilled feed) and cattle blood in calf milk replacer.

It amazes me the kind of fluff bills I am seeing being passed. When do we get to helping we the people?

Which DEMOCRATIC members voted with their corporate masters instead of serving the people who elected them?

needs to get their head on straight.

No one is really speaking about the cost issues. Face it, fast food is often the cheapest, while healthy alternatives tend to be more expensive. In this crushing economy, it will only get worse. How about a sort of 'vice' tax like you see on smokes and alcohol. Make it a big one so we can fund heath care or organic farms. If Mc D and others sold $15 extra value meals, you'd see less obesity.

People love to believe the lies. As a nation, it's what we do best.

For argument's sake, let's say that a family spends $20 buying dinner for four people at a fast food restaurant such as McDonald's. For that same $20, that family could easily buy enough meat, grains, produce, and eggs/dairy to provide 2-3 meals.

The only thing being saved here is not money, but time. And what is that time spent doing? Driving to the fast food restaurant, waiting in the drive-through line, driving home, then eating the dinner they just bought while watching television and seeing more commercials for more bad food....

In my home, we don't eat fast food at all, and rarely eat out in restaurants. The cost savings has actually increased the available amount in our grocery budget. I also buy more organic and all-natural groceries than I used to, which are more expensive, but we still don't spend as much as we used to on food when we were eating out all the time.

I see it differently with my soldiers at least. The single soldier living in the barracks is mostly the lowest ranking (E-1 to E-4) and thus the lowest paid. Their living quarters do not have cooking appliances. If said soldiers are forced to work late or come in real early (which is so common no one really complains anymore) then they miss Chow Hall hours, so they are stuck. Where should they eat on a shoe-string budget? I have 9 young soldiers that report to me, and they would like to know what your alternatives are.

Your problem is that your base is not taking care of your men.

"Where should they eat?" you ask.

At your table, duh. If Fort Hood cannot provide them with the time or the place to eat, then the problem is yours (and the other military commanders at FH) to solve.

I'm going to warn my cousin about this - he's being sent to Fort Hood this week.

I'm middle management lady. There isn't anything I can say or do to change anything. I may be their boss, but my bosses don't want to hear it. I guess if it doesn't fit your little box then it's "besides the point" and "your problem". I an just trying to show there are more issues than just responsible/irresponsible, lazy/not lazy, etc.

If you'll take the time to read any or all of my posts in this thread, I have not once accused people of laziness or irresponsibility.

You're middle management: then "manage" the situation.

If you can't think of a solution that consists of something other than sending your hungry and hardworking men to a fast food franchise to spend their own hard-earned money on crap food, then the problem is unfortunately theirs. However, please don't put your bitchface on and waggle it at me just because you're not capable of finding an answer to your collective-self-made problem. Your inability to deal with it is not my fault.

This was a thread about junk food, corporate and personal responsibility, legislative protectionism, and nutrition. This was not a thread about how to feed your men when the mess closes. If you had a point to make, it didn't come across.

Don't call me lady, and I won't call you boy. :eyes:

working several jobs.

Although in many cases it could be that it make more sense to work less hours and cook at home more.

Saving people from their own stupidity. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Oh, it's on the phone to it's lawyer.

since it's no big secret that there's enough salt in them to kill an elephant. Same thing goes for fast food chains....I know it's garbage,but nobody forces me to eat it. I am really sick of people getting rich off of these ridiculous claims..

It's all about taking responsibility, which several people here can't seem to grasp.

The corperations get away with it because the sheeple want it.

helps them to get away with it...

What abuot CORPORATE RESPONSIBITY?

.... this bullshit isn't even on my radar screen.

Yes, congress is wasting their time with such a stupid law, on the other hand - anyone wishing to sue a company for their food choices is wasting everyone's time and money.

Yes, fast food is not good for you. But it tastes good, and that's enough for way too many Americans. Companies make it BECAUSE AMERICANS BUY IT. The fast food industry has made several attempts at makeing healthier food, AMERICANS WON'T BUY IT.

Americans are fat and lazy not because of government, not because of corporations, but because of themselves.

They are thinking of the people here that are trying to claim it's the corporations fault that people eat too much junk food. I can't stand it when someone wants to pass laws to limit my own freedom. I don;t need big "mother Government" telling me how to live my life. If some people can't resist fattening food, that doesn't mean we have to pass laws to protect them.

This is exactly the kind of fight we don't want anything to do with. Corporations DO have a responsibility to the people, it's true, but that doesn't mean we need big brother constantly passing stupid laws to protect us against OURSELVES!

Just because Republicans claim they are the party of personal responsibility doesn't mean us Democrats can't stand up for it ourselves. I NEVER want the government telling companies they HAVE to serve less fattenning food. It's against everything this country stands for. We have freedom and liberty in this country. If that means some people will make bad choices and suffer the consequences, then so be it.

If I want a goddamn cheeseburger once in a while I don't Uncle Sam preventing me from getting it. If I want a drink that will rot my insides out, like Whiskey, then I WILL get that drink and enjot every damn drop. If I eat and drink cheeseburgers and whiskey 7 days a week I'll die. And that's the way it goes...

.... I don't want government telling me what to eat, what to read, what to wear or what to think.

Some people think there is a legislative solution to every damn problem, guess what, there isn't.

own actions; it's always someone else who made them do it...truly sickening

I see no other reason for this to even be suggested as legistlation.

and step away from the counter!

Sugar, salt and fat. Yes, it is true. A while ago, businesses discovered that people like to eat things that taste good. They realized they could make a large amount of money selling those things. Unfortunately most of the things that provide the quickest satisfaction to our taste buds are not very good for us in large quantities. Companies also learned that showing colorful, detailed pictures of this food could cause an actual craving and lead to more sales.

When I can return to Chicago, I tend to indulge in a lot of food items that I can not get in other areas of the country. It may not be the greatest of cuisines, but it reminds me of growing up there. I might tend to put on a few pounds from my visit, but I never think to blame anyone else for my indulgence.

When corporations deliberately hide the danger of a product they're selling, or when drug companies cover up the side effects of their pills, these are serious actions that need to be investigated and punished. Putting fast food restaurants in that same category undermines the seriousness of real corporate malfeasance.

If I fail to teach my child that it is dangerous to touch a hot stove or an electrical outlet, I don't think the electrical company is to blame for providing a dangerous product that is so easily accessible. Obesity and poor nutrition are also dangers, it's just that theirs occur not instantly, but over long periods of time. I don't think there is anything particularly "Republican" about this opinion, I think it's just common sense.