Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 Not if they are not informed as to what is actually in it. Not if they are promised one thing and fed another. Not if they are victims of a huge ad campaign, marketing gimmicks, and herd mentality. Unless and until we have truthful information and solid facts about the food we eat, no, we can NOT choose, because we don't even understand the choices. Remember not long ago when they still hadn't admitted how horrible trans-fatty acids are for us? Now go look at how many foods have hydrogenized or semi-hydrogenized oils in them. Try avoiding them. You can eat sticks and dirt, basically. THIS is why it's the food industry at fault, calculatedly, and why Congress is offering them protectionist laws now -- to protect their cash cow investments. Further, and more to the point, it is none of Congress's business to decide with sweeping generality that an entire category of lawsuit is illegal -- that is the role of the judges and courts. If a case is found to be superfluous, it's the court's duty to throw the case out. It's self-regulating. If the suit has no merit, nothing happens to those being sued, but the bringers of the suit can be slapped with fines, even jail time, for wasting the court's time. Congress has no more business in this situation than it has meddling in our bedrooms or wombs. On Friday, March 12, 2004, at 03:29 AM, wrote: > Everyone can choose what they eat and do not eat, " If you look too deeply into the abyss, the abyss will look into you. " --Friedrich Nietzsche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 > However, I've also heard the argument that Congress shouldn't decide > the type of lawsuits, the courts should decide. That is a very > legitimate argument and it makes me re-think my stance. I agree with what you are saying. I was expressing my two views about it. On one hand a part of me is for it, the other is against it. Just like tabacco, if we can prove that they put things in the food that create an addiction then there definitely is a worthy case. Believe me, I'm not on the side of Congress or the industry. I just write from my initial gut reaction, which many times isn't the most eloquently put. You are right, we need to educate the public. And that is where food labeling comes in to play. Remember how much the food industry fought to keep labels off food? And how, recently, they fought to keep GMO labeling off? We MUST educate people. These restaurants need to be held accountable on a larger scale, not through individual or class action law suits. But, perhaps through lawsuits, we can then move into labeling.....I don't know. As for me, personally, I read every label of what I eat, and I do eat more than sticks & dirt. I practically shop in two places in the grocery store; fruit/veggie area and the nutrition center. I even read the labels on bread, as " healthy " brands such as Oroweat put corn syrup in their breads. As you said, we cannot make healthy choices if we don't know what those choices are. And as reptilegrl said, it's hard to make the right choices if we didn't learn as children. And as I continue to write, my emotions are calm and I realize that, yes, in this " democractic " society; we can sue whoever we damn well please. Denise , The Stewarts <stews9@c...> wrote: > Not if they are not informed as to what is actually in it. > > Not if they are promised one thing and fed another. > > Not if they are victims of a huge ad campaign, marketing gimmicks, and > herd mentality. > > Unless and until we have truthful information and solid facts about the > food we eat, no, we can NOT choose, because we don't even understand the > choices. > > Remember not long ago when they still hadn't admitted how horrible > trans-fatty acids are for us? Now go look at how many foods have > hydrogenized or semi-hydrogenized oils in them. > > Try avoiding them. > > You can eat sticks and dirt, basically. > > THIS is why it's the food industry at fault, calculatedly, and why > Congress is offering them protectionist laws now -- to protect their cash > cow investments. > > Further, and more to the point, it is none of Congress's business to > decide with sweeping generality that an entire category of lawsuit is > illegal -- that is the role of the judges and courts. If a case is found > to be superfluous, it's the court's duty to throw the case out. It's > self-regulating. > > If the suit has no merit, nothing happens to those being sued, but the > bringers of the suit can be slapped with fines, even jail time, for > wasting the court's time. > > Congress has no more business in this situation than it has meddling in > our bedrooms or wombs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 While I think our American society is becoming far too litigious I think your points are good solid points, and I agree. There are many morons out there who don't care what they put in their bodies and even if they knew exactly what was in the 'food' they still just wouldn't care. I do honestly believe however, that if many of the people knew exactly 'how bad' that sh*t is for them, they would no longer eat it, and they certainly wouldn't feed it too their kids. I think most people know junk food is not good for them, yet very few know how bad it is for them. Additionally based on principal alone I would not support any law or movement designed to protect establishments like Mc D's, BK, Taco Bell, Karl's Jr, etc that put life and suffering on a production line. They should get what they get. Like my mom says " F**k 'em and feed 'em rocks " cheers, Scott The Stewarts [stews9] Friday, March 12, 2004 7:32 AM Why We Should Always Be Able to Sue Not if they are not informed as to what is actually in it. Not if they are promised one thing and fed another. Not if they are victims of a huge ad campaign, marketing gimmicks, and herd mentality. Unless and until we have truthful information and solid facts about the food we eat, no, we can NOT choose, because we don't even understand the choices. Remember not long ago when they still hadn't admitted how horrible trans-fatty acids are for us? Now go look at how many foods have hydrogenized or semi-hydrogenized oils in them. Try avoiding them. You can eat sticks and dirt, basically. THIS is why it's the food industry at fault, calculatedly, and why Congress is offering them protectionist laws now -- to protect their cash cow investments. Further, and more to the point, it is none of Congress's business to decide with sweeping generality that an entire category of lawsuit is illegal -- that is the role of the judges and courts. If a case is found to be superfluous, it's the court's duty to throw the case out. It's self-regulating. If the suit has no merit, nothing happens to those being sued, but the bringers of the suit can be slapped with fines, even jail time, for wasting the court's time. Congress has no more business in this situation than it has meddling in our bedrooms or wombs. On Friday, March 12, 2004, at 03:29 AM, wrote: > Everyone can choose what they eat and do not eat, " If you look too deeply into the abyss, the abyss will look into you. " --Friedrich Nietzsche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.