Reply
Tue 13 May, 2003 08:07 am
California leads the way :
AP - Feature Stories
Suit Seeks to Ban Kids From Eating Oreos
Mon May 12, 3:04 PM ET Add AP - Feature Stories to My Yahoo!
SAN FRANCISCO - Kids in California may have to give up their Oreos, if a lawsuit filed by a San Francisco public interest lawyer is successful.
The lawsuit, filed last week in Marin County superior court, seeks a ban on the black and white cookies, arguing the trans fats that make the filling creamy and the cookie crisp are too dangerous for children to eat.
Stephen Joseph said he filed the suit against Nabisco, the maker of Oreos, after reading articles that said the artificial fat is hidden in most packaged food, though consumers have no way of knowing.
The big difference between this suit and others that have targeted tobacco and McDonald's fast food is that consumers know that tobacco is bad for their health and that McDonald's food contains a lot of fat, Joseph said.
"Trans fat is not the same thing at all. Very few people know about it," he said, explaining that his suit focuses on the fact that trans fats are hidden dangers being marketed to children.
Nabisco officials were not immediately available for comment. They have 30 days from the May 5 filing date to respond to the suit.
The National Academy of Sciences (news - web sites)' Institute of Medicine (news - web sites), which advises the government on health policy, said last summer that this kind of fat should not be consumed at all. It is directly associated with heart disease and with LDL cholesterol, the 'bad' kind that accumulates in arteries.
But the U.S. Department of Agriculture (news - web sites) said partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which contain trans fats, are present in about 40 percent of the food on grocery store shelves. Cookies, crackers, and microwave popcorn are the biggest carriers of trans fats, which are created when hydrogen is bubbled through oil to produce a margarine that doesn't melt at room temperature and increases the product's shelf life.
The Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) has tried to force food companies to list trans fat content with other nutritional information on food packages, but manufacturers have challenged the rule. Even food labeled "low in cholesterol" or "low in saturated fats" may have high percentages of trans fats.
Informing customers about trans fats on food labels could prevent 7,600 to 17,100 cases of coronary heart disease and 2,500 to 5,600 deaths per year, the FDA has estimated.
Joseph said he has targeted Nabisco because, while other major snack food makers have reduced the amount of trans fats in their products, Nabisco has not.
Another "do-gooder" trying to tell people how to live their lives. Anybody with half a brain knows that eating sugary cookies is not good for you. It is up to parents to keep kids from sticking their hands in the cookie jar too often.
If it were up to these guys, we'd all be growing our own stuff, and fertilize it with horse manure. Just like the 19th century. Hmmm, maybe that is what these "do-gooders" REALLY want!
oreos illegal?
Hi Phoenix. It looks like at this late stage in my life I'll have to become a lawbreaker. All right gang watch for the sherrif. I'll eat the oreo.
I read this, was originally appalled, and then "hmmm." The part that jumped out at me was the fact that it's not just a matter of sugar:
Quote:The National Academy of Sciences (news - web sites)' Institute of Medicine (news - web sites), which advises the government on health policy, said last summer that this kind of fat should not be consumed at all. It is directly associated with heart disease and with LDL cholesterol, the 'bad' kind that accumulates in arteries.
(Emphasis mine.) So the issue is the trans fats, which the NAS says should not be consumed AT ALL, not the sugar per se.
Still mostly appalled.
Soz- very easy...Don't buy Oreos. If enough people decide that Oreos are bad for them, and sales go down, Nabisco will have to do something about it. I just get pissed off at these lawsuits.
Yeah. I know what you mean. I'm interested in the trans fats issue, though, which I didn't know before. And that is part of the point -- that is not part of the labeling.
Quote:The big difference between this suit and others that have targeted tobacco and McDonald's fast food is that consumers know that tobacco is bad for their health and that McDonald's food contains a lot of fat, Joseph said.
"Trans fat is not the same thing at all. Very few people know about it," he said, explaining that his suit focuses on the fact that trans fats are hidden dangers being marketed to children.
So, he seems to be doing a pretty effective job of getting the word out, and if that is his motivation I'm much less het up about it than if it's a money-grubbing thing.
Soz- Agree. Now that we know, there is no need for a lawsuit..............unless the guy is a money grubber, and/or wants to make a name for himself!
Phoenix: I understand what you are saying, but surprisingly, my take on this is closer to sozobe's.
The article points out the distinction between this lawsuit and those against the tobacco companies and fast food purveyors.
How can we know if it is bad for us if there is no indication that the trans fat is in there?
More significantly, is the prevalence of this type of fat in ALL snack foods.
It appears from the defendant's case that it isn't a matter of this stuff being unhealthy, it is a matter of it being dangerous, and if it is, I don't want kids to have ANY of it.
An appropriate remedy is that the snack food people would have to inform the public through labeling that tells us that it is in there.
I think that freedom of choice is not as significant as freedom of informed choice.
whole natural foods will always be better for you than foods that are tweaked with -that's my theory. Reducing fat is one thing, but developing a new fat to replace it is something else entirely. Remember olestra? Trans fats and hydrogenated fats are bad for you. I know that, but most people look at me like I'ma freak when I tell them. People don't want to learn about things like this. Or they just remain ignorant for lack of being educated. Either way, the suit can be seen as a tool for educating people.
Phoenix said:
Quote:Soz- very easy...Don't buy Oreos. If enough people decide that Oreos are bad for them, and sales go down, Nabisco will have to do something about it. I just get pissed off at these lawsuits
I pretty much agree with that - the whole(I MEAN WHOLE) system is screwed up with a victim mentality.
husker- Exactly my point. When will people start taking responsibility for themselves, and stop looking to government to baby sit them?
husker wrote:Phoenix said:
Quote:Soz- very easy...Don't buy Oreos. If enough people decide that Oreos are bad for them, and sales go down, Nabisco will have to do something about it. I just get pissed off at these lawsuits
I pretty much agree with that - the whole(I MEAN WHOLE) system is screwed up with a victim mentality.
I love Oreos and I plan on buying and eating them.. Tell lawyer, Mr. Joseph to get a life.
The darn line for handouts is pretty long. "you got 2cents in your pocket?" I'll take it!
I feel we gotta be told what is in a product all the pros AND cons.
I also feel that there comes a point in time where "The Law" needs to be kept to criminals, and to leave us alone.
I mean Yesterday, Some kids were building a bike ramp on the side of our our little drive way. Well away from any cars or traffic. A cop car came along and told them to take it down. I mean it was a board and a broken cinderblock for crying out loud. As a kid we always had them! But now things are being so regulated, The law babysits us so much that its going to come to a point where people are going to start rebelling just to live their life! And that also isn't right.
I guess I have a more old fashioned mentality than a lot of my elders but hey, I say let us have all the facts, and we can decide for our selves.
My main thing here is I will happily not buy oreos if I know that they contain trans fats which the NAS has said nobody should eat. I learned that they do by reading about this law suit, and had no idea before that.
I thought Oreos were made by Nabisco. Since I own Nabisco stock, I'll buy Oreos.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace