I'm not saying that oreos should be banned. The point I'm trying to make is that Joe Public (we are not a good representation of JP) is not going to even think about what is good for him or bad for him. He prolly doesn't even read the NYTs. How will he know it's bad for him?
So none of you think, and again, I don't endorse suing the begeezus out of the tobacco companies, that RJ Reynolds was acting illegally when they added substances to their tobacco that they knew were a health risk to smokers and then lied about that health risk?
Anyone know of any studies that show
if suing a company makes their sales go up or down?
Perhaps this lawyer was actually hired by Oreo?
Sugar wrote:Wanna go for a cheeseburger and a beer, TerryDoo?
Only if I can bum a cigarette.
I understand what you're saying, but if Joe Public chooses not to inform himself, that's his choice. I'm just saying that Joe Public has to learn to stand on his own two feet and stop whining about what everyone else is doing to him. If we continue to whine about being victims, we will continue to be victims.
The greatest eaters of crap like Oreos are children. They do not have a clue about diet.
edgarblythe- But it's the parents who BUY the crap, and they need to bear the responsibility!
But, edgar, their parents should and mostly don't. Come on people, is Joe Public really going to educate himself? Do you know who it'll be suing these companies down the line? Not me.
littlek- When are people expected to take responsibility for their own actions? If they choose crap for their kids, so be it. It's their lookout, IMO!
Phoenix. Who do you see suing these companies in the future? The people who live a healthy lifestyle? Nope, it'll be Joe Public. Is it right? Nope.
I'm with ya on this, littlek. The majority of the world doesn't know where to look for information, or doesn't even know they should be looking for information, or they don't realize the implications. If this catches the eye of a few people on t.v. or in a tabloid or wherever, then the lawyer in this case has done a good thing.
Suggesting that the parents are responsible for children is great. I agree. But if the parents don't have the resources to determine some of these health dangers, for whatever reason, then i feel the community as a whole has a responsibility to care for the children.
Don't even get me started on the chemicals that have been added to cigarettes for decades now, to increase the addiction. One of the only times I think capital punishment is perfectly reasonable is when i hear, or read, about the tobacco company execs who approved the additives. I hate them. They are truly evil.
The parents should be more responsible for their child's eating habits, plain and simple. Sueing Nabisco is just frivolous.
Now...this is totally off topic, but it has been on my mind all day. Read this tragic story first:
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030514.wgirl0514_4/BNStory/National/
There are people here in Toronto calling the mother of this poor child negligent for not insisting that the child walk home with her, or her friend's mother. It was a 10 minute walk. I am all for parents being more responsible about raising their kids, choosing their diet, etc., but quite frankly, this doesn't seem at all like a case where the parents should be blamed.
Another example, IMNSHO, where the community should be more responsible for the weaker, smaller members.
Little kids should not suffer because their parents are dorks. There is responsibility for self and there is social responsibility. I would rather offend a million self sufficient persons than let one child be harmed through parental ignorance.
Survival of the fittest ... Let them eat cake!
CodeBorg - cake would be better for them than oreo cookies. Provided it was hand made or at least unadultered.
People should be responsible. But with responsibility, they should have the ability itself. The sources of dietary information should be readily available -- right in front of shoppers faces.
But making things illegal?
1) If you pass a law for it, then people are no longer responsible. The law is. People would depend on the law to tell them what's right and force their hand, like children. Bad training.
2) You cannot mandate conscience and character ... Educate, don't legislate!
3) Too much law is like too much antibiotic, and actually breeds what you are fighting.
With full (easy) access to the information, and a sense of caring, no law would be necessary.
The cookie should be in their hands to do as they please.
Jeez... Sounds just like drugs, huh?
Step away from the cookie. I repeat: Step away from the cookie.
CodeBorg wrote: The sources of dietary information should be readily available -- right in front of shoppers faces.
EXACTLY!!!
But: I don't believe the law suit will lead to banning the Oreos -then they would have to ban multitudes of other foods that include trans fat and they certainly know it. I think it could much more likely lead precisely to the obligation to list it among the nutrition facts -thus I am very much for it. If that's what the consensus is - dietary information for everyone - than this seems to be a way to it. Because, let's face it. In the American society how else would you achieve that? Ask the government to kindly pass a regulation? Something tells me that would not bring results.
