Tweet
I am too flustered by behavior like this to even write comments which wouldn't be 95% filtered out anyway but I think that most of us can agree that this person is definately deserving of any name calling we might have for him. 
WASHINGTON, DC -- A lawsuit designed to ban the sale of Oreo cookies to
children is an attack on individual responsibility and parental rights,
Libertarians say.
"Americans don't need junk lawsuits to protect them from junk foods,"
said Geoffrey Neale, national chairman of the Libertarian Party.
"Parents should be the ones who decide what their kids can eat -- not
judges, politicians or cookie cops."
San Francisco attorney Stephen Joseph alleges in a lawsuit against
Nabisco, Inc., that Oreo cookies are a health hazard because they are
made with partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, also called trans fat.
Joseph claims that the cookies, which have been manufactured since
1912, are too dangerous for children to eat.
His lawsuit, filed in Marin County Superior Court this month, asks for
an injunction ordering Kraft Foods to stop selling Oreo cookies to
children in California.
Joseph's suit is similar to one filed last year against McDonald's,
Burger King, and other fast-food giants, which was rejected by a
federal court. Restaurant industry observers say the legal strategies
are part of the larger "war on fatty foods," which also includes
legislation in several states to ban snack foods and soft drinks in
public schools.
But the problem with looking to courts and legislators to improve
public health, Libertarians say, is that it tramples on the notion of
individual and parental responsibility.
"It's condescending for people like Joseph to assume that other adults
are too dumb to know the difference between snack foods and health
foods," Neale said. "And it's downright offensive to ask courts to
insert themselves between parent and child and start pulling snack
foods out of kitchen cabinets."
Joseph's central legal claim is that Nabisco can he held liable under
the California civil code because trans fat is not "known to be unsafe
by the ordinary consumer."
"Let's set aside for a moment the dubious claim that Oreo cookies --
which Americans have been eating for 91 years with no apparent ill
effects -- can be considered a health hazard," Neale said.
"The fact remains that thanks to the free flow of information, it's
ridiculous to claim that the dangers of fatty foods are unknown," Neale
said.
Joseph admits he didn't decide Oreos were "unsafe" until he read about
hydrogenated fat in a newspaper article two years ago, he noted.
"Doesn't that mean that millions of other Americans are just as
informed as he is, and can decide for themselves whether this substance
is too dangerous for their kids?" Neale asked. "Calling trans fat a
hidden health threat doesn't pass the laugh test."
The free market is already working in other ways to safeguard public
health, Neale explained. A few examples:
* The Kraft Corp. is already testing alternatives to trans fats in its
snack foods.
* McDonald's restaurants, in an attempt to catch up with competitors
who are offering healthier menus, has unveiled a plan to introduce low-
fat French fries.
* Frito-Lay, owned by PepsiCo. Inc. announced last year that it would
eliminate trans fat from Doritos and other snacks.
"It's clear that when it comes to protecting public health, the free
market is way ahead of the food police," Neale said. "The fact is that
judges, politicians, and litigation-happy health nuts pose a far
greater threat to your freedom than Oreos pose to your health."
WASHINGTON, DC -- A lawsuit designed to ban the sale of Oreo cookies to
children is an attack on individual responsibility and parental rights,
Libertarians say.
"Americans don't need junk lawsuits to protect them from junk foods,"
said Geoffrey Neale, national chairman of the Libertarian Party.
"Parents should be the ones who decide what their kids can eat -- not
judges, politicians or cookie cops."
San Francisco attorney Stephen Joseph alleges in a lawsuit against
Nabisco, Inc., that Oreo cookies are a health hazard because they are
made with partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, also called trans fat.
Joseph claims that the cookies, which have been manufactured since
1912, are too dangerous for children to eat.
His lawsuit, filed in Marin County Superior Court this month, asks for
an injunction ordering Kraft Foods to stop selling Oreo cookies to
children in California.
Joseph's suit is similar to one filed last year against McDonald's,
Burger King, and other fast-food giants, which was rejected by a
federal court. Restaurant industry observers say the legal strategies
are part of the larger "war on fatty foods," which also includes
legislation in several states to ban snack foods and soft drinks in
public schools.
But the problem with looking to courts and legislators to improve
public health, Libertarians say, is that it tramples on the notion of
individual and parental responsibility.
"It's condescending for people like Joseph to assume that other adults
are too dumb to know the difference between snack foods and health
foods," Neale said. "And it's downright offensive to ask courts to
insert themselves between parent and child and start pulling snack
foods out of kitchen cabinets."
Joseph's central legal claim is that Nabisco can he held liable under
the California civil code because trans fat is not "known to be unsafe
by the ordinary consumer."
"Let's set aside for a moment the dubious claim that Oreo cookies --
which Americans have been eating for 91 years with no apparent ill
effects -- can be considered a health hazard," Neale said.
"The fact remains that thanks to the free flow of information, it's
ridiculous to claim that the dangers of fatty foods are unknown," Neale
said.
Joseph admits he didn't decide Oreos were "unsafe" until he read about
hydrogenated fat in a newspaper article two years ago, he noted.
"Doesn't that mean that millions of other Americans are just as
informed as he is, and can decide for themselves whether this substance
is too dangerous for their kids?" Neale asked. "Calling trans fat a
hidden health threat doesn't pass the laugh test."
The free market is already working in other ways to safeguard public
health, Neale explained. A few examples:
* The Kraft Corp. is already testing alternatives to trans fats in its
snack foods.
* McDonald's restaurants, in an attempt to catch up with competitors
who are offering healthier menus, has unveiled a plan to introduce low-
fat French fries.
* Frito-Lay, owned by PepsiCo. Inc. announced last year that it would
eliminate trans fat from Doritos and other snacks.
"It's clear that when it comes to protecting public health, the free
market is way ahead of the food police," Neale said. "The fact is that
judges, politicians, and litigation-happy health nuts pose a far
greater threat to your freedom than Oreos pose to your health."
. Retired
Comment