Oreos, California, Lawyers May be hazardous??

I heard about this on the radio. What next? Flashlights have been known to cause temporary blindness /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Below is a brief quote from the news article---
California suit seeks ban on Oreos
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — 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 May 1 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.

I saw this guy on the news this morning, what a joke.

I call them Health Nazis. Let us take this to the Ultimate: Life ends in Death, therefore Ban Life via Law!

evidently transfat kills thousands of people a year. it's fat that doesn't melt at room temperature, so it hangs in your arteries forever,and it isn't listed in the package ingredients. Nabisco uses more transfat than all the other companies, even Nabisco's own spokeman (Mudd!) says transfat should be regulated by a federal health agency!
..if the corporation doesn't give a hoot about your health, and won't list the ingredients on the package so you can protect yourself, why shouldn't they be sued?
I'll stick to the (non-animal fat) Sunshine Hydrox till they do...
(..or else I'll go into business selling cyanide cookies for those free thinkers who demand and enjoy them..)

[ QUOTE ]
TedtheLed said:
I'll stick to the (non-animal fat) Sunshine Hydrox till they do...


[/ QUOTE ]
But Ted the Oreos taste better (IMHO)
How much would you sell the cyanide cookies for? Would they have transfats in them? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif
Call them Socraticos?? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif No, that was Hemlock /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twak.gif

Banning Oreos is rediculous. Sueing them so they list the transfats on the labels; that I can understand...

But banning them?

It's like the fast food lawsuit blaming FF-restaurants for making people fat. What the heck do people expect when they go to a drive through or eat out at McDonalds or JItB? Healthy foods?

Are people really foolish enough to believe Oreos are "healthy" for you?

I tell you what... if Oreos get banned, you will see a lawsuit the size of the Grand Canyon against those who got them banned... for the emotional distress it will cause me and the therapy that I will need if I can't get my red and green cream filled Christmas Oreos and my purple and yellow and blue cream filled Spring Oreos and now my Uh-Oh Oreos that are backwards (vanilla cookie outside and chocolate filling inside). I don't have much in life... but I have my Oreos. Don't MESS with my Oreos!!!

The body's craving for the transfat in the Oreo filling is a genetic thing....it's in our genes! I don't know of anyoe that had to teach their kids how to take an Oreo apart to get at the filling! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Hear me know, believe me later. The next great products liability litigation will be in the food industry.

Asbestos is over, breast implants are no longer in vogue, tobacco has already settled with the government, firearms suits by cities are being dismissed and mold lawsuits aren't front page news any more.

It now costs as much to treat fat related diseases as it does tobacco. I'm confidently predicting an increasing number of suits against food manufacturers. I don't think many will be successful but what the suits really are trying to do is shakedown the industry.

One wonders if the old (animal fat based) Oreo recipe is in fact safer than the new (hydrogenated vegetable fat based) recipe. We actually don't know all the details of how food can alter health, and this whole 'trans fat' thing is a perfect example.

Since Cholesterol is implicated in bad heart health, it was thought that one should lower Choleterol intake. Thus 'butter bad, margarine good'. Then we learned about the difference between cis and trans fats, and now it is 'butter bad, margarine _worse_'...Who knows what comes next (remember the movie 'Sleeper', where scientists in the future decided that meat and tobacco were actually good for the body /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Trans fats are _not_ necessarily solid at room temperature. Rather, trans fats are a result of hydrogenation of unsaturated fats. The more saturated a fat is, the more likely it is to be solid at room temperature, and hydrogenation is the process of saturating an unsaturated fat. So: hydrogenated fats are likely to be solid at room temperature, and hydrogenated fats are usually trans fatty acids. But you get some interesting exceptions. One of my all time favorite fats, cocoa butter, is _very_ saturated, and is a room temperature solid. However it starts out this way, and doesn't get hydrogenated, and contains lots of _cis_ fatty acids.

Anyhow, I don't know what the cis versus trans versus totally saturated aspects of animal fats are, but it wouldn't surprise me if down the road someone figured out that Oreos made with lard or tallow were 'safer' than oreos made with hydrogenated vegetable shortening /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

-Jon

This reminds me of something...


anyone remember the Twinkie defense?

I see no reason that Nabisco should be held to different food-labelling standards than any other company. Current food labelling requirements in the US are set by the FDA. If the requirements are overlooking an important ingredient, then the FDA should revise the requirement so consumers can be aware of it in all sorts of foods (not just Oreos). The FDA should be the target of any legal action in this regard, not Nabisco. Nabisco is in compliance with the current regulations.

Regarding lawsuits against food companies in general, one major problem with them is that, unlike cigarettes or breast implants, people rarely get sick consuming products from only one food company. In other words, was it all the McDonald's food that made me fat, or was it the food I got from Hardees or was it the soft drinks, etc? If you can't place the blame with certainty, it's hard to get a judgement.

There have only been a handful of food items in the history of the world that have been deadly or so dangerous that they needed to be banned or strictly controlled. Absinth and Fugu are a couple of things that come to mind. But even Absinth's banning was mostly political and if made safely was only deadly to people that abused it.

I fully believe that Oreo cookies could be the cause of some peoples horrible health problems. But I think you'll find that they indulged in them in ridiculous quantities.

My family used nothing but "margarine" while I was growing up. I spread this deadly substance on my toast and used it in cooking and my cholesterol is just fine today. I bear no scars from it.

If you want to eat Oreo's (and honestly, we all do right?) try to stop at a couple instead of a whole bag and I think you'll be fine!

This is the worst kind of stupidity. And it wont stop the stupid from killing themselves with poor eating habits. You can have my Oreos when you pry them from my cold dead hands!

[ QUOTE ]
shrap said:
anyone remember the Twinkie defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... And believe me, I could survive completley on twinkies and nobody would ever believe that my actions afterwards were any different than they were before /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Jason

Mmm... Oreos.... mmmm... Twinkies...

Interesting article:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/twinkie.htm

A little bit overblown article. They speak as if the whole public had been there listening to the trial and chose to mis-hear it. One would guess that the Press was there and heard the evidence and misrepresented it to the public as being a much more likely reality. Just IMHO, that is. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Lurker,

I disagree.

Meeting the FDA labeling requirments doesn't answer any questions or resolve the issue. FDA labeling only gives the consumer a common format to compare with other products. The FDA didn't make, design or produce the cookies. They simply provide content label standards. Compliance with a label requirement doesn't make a product healthy or safe. (Tobacco warnings.) A company could voluntarily choose to add more info but Nabisco hasn't. There is no viable suit against the FDA.

That said, you make an extremely good point about people eating a variety of other fatty foods from other sources. But the lawsuit is against Nabisco, not the consumer. From that view, you need to look at the product they produce.

On the merits, it's a choice issue. People know that Oreos and Twinkies aren't good for you but unlike tobacco that contains addicting drugs, there is no compulsion to buy or eat them other than tasting damn good and you want to eat some.

There are no rules or laws that compel the consumer to always make the healthiest choices in their diet. If you make voluntary life style choices that ultimately harm you, you have no one else to blame.

I think I'm going to have a some artery clogging treats from Little Debbie...

my favorite: CHOCOLATE OREOS and a big glass of milk...skim, of course!

heh, heh, heh!!!

Bob ps edited to fix a somewhat pornographic error...

hm ... Oreos .... you cannot imagine how difficult it is to get them here in Germany! I just imported 23x4 packs from mauritius island .. hmmmmmm ....
can't think of a better cookie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bernhard

[ QUOTE ]
pedalinbob said:
my favorite: CHOCOLATE OREOS and a big glass of milk...skin, of course!

heh, heh, heh!!!

Bob

[/ QUOTE ]

milk...skin??? Whaddya drinkin there man?