Well I wasn't refering to low-carb at all since there is no consensus yet that's it healthy, so the Food Manufacturers aren't introducing low-carb products for the sake of our health (as if !!) but rather responding to consumer demand.

Rather I was refering to McDonald phasing out their super-size portions

personally I dont think McDonalds is phasing out supersized meals for the good of our health they probably think that people will now buy 2 meals instead. They have got peole used to a lot of food and now they will buy even more.

lawyers
 

sorry to say, but i see this much more as a lawyer promo than a food issue. Lawyers never want to see a potential case go by the board. They could care less whether we're fat, thin or whatever.

Not all lawyers are bad!
 

Believe it or not, not all attorneys are bad people out to rob others. In fact, often it's bad people robbing good attorneys. My husband lost his private practice because his clients didn't pay, and he charged half of what most private attorneys charge.

DH is now a DA, and I can assure you he is one of the most ethical people I know.

At issue is not whether people do frivolous lawsuits (which I think we all agree are done), but whether congress should intervene to make any industry exempt to charges in court. Court is a CIVIL place to bring a dispute or concern. Again, if you take out legal ways to challenge industry, it only promotes illegal activities against those industries as people feel they have no voice. This is NOT what anyone wants... it's a licence for vandalism and food tampering because there is no forum for the individual to be heard against the big company.

As I mentioned before, the attorney who filed the Oreo case, filed it to deliberately raise noise about the nutritional problems with the cookies, and subsequently dropped the case. It caused enough noise to wake up the country to debate like this. It also prompted the new legislation on making people aware of the dangers of trans fats.

Industries like McDonalds which have had lawsuits dropped, have been nudged by the threat of future lawsuits to proactively work towards healthier menus, even if they weren't found liable.

Sometimes it's not the lawsuit, but the fact that lawsuits involve accountability (the threat of lawsuit) that make them useful in corporate behavior changes, particularly when big business has a lot more rights to profit from an individual, irrespective as to whether their product is dangerous or not.

The explicit marketing to children of fast food and sweets, whether it is on morning cartoons, or in public schools, I find to be particularly unethical.

Although adults have more reasoning ability, young people do not. And truly all of us (even those of us who know better) are subconsciously victimized by insiduous advertising. There are enough serious studies to illustrate the effect of advertising on human psychology.

The unprecedented increase in childhood diabetes that is a direct result of decreased activity and increased consumption of junk food (aka sweets and nutritionally empty carbohydrates), and can be in part linked to the gross liberty of companies to advertise as much as they want without regard to the potential consequences. I read a very interesting study a few weeks ago in this forum that linked TV commercials as a direct influencing factor in the obesity of children.

We have bred a society of children who are convinced that the only foods out there to eat are the ones that are advertised, and thus, the notion of even trying new "non-trendy" foods is very foreign.

I certainly believe in the link between advertisement, it's content and addictive habits. Companies wouldn't spend billions to lure you to buy their products, if it wasn't effective.

Amazing post BV, I agree with you 100%. Publicity should be strictly regulated, and outright banned when it is aimed towards children.

I agree with you on all accounts, Bv! Great post! :D

brilliant so we need cartoons characters to advertise brocoli :)

Indeed!
 

:lol: I personally think dancing fruits and veggies would not be such a bad thing!

There's some of that which goes on in public television programs and in preschool (and of course there's Veggie Tales), but making natural healthy food fun--showing families in cars snacking on whole oranges, grapes, strawberries, celery sticks on their trip to the beach, might be a more positive thing to balance out the constant vision of Snickers, Cheetos, and Oreos.

I agree in principle, and it's probably a good thing this bill will die in Senate anyway. Advertising reform... definitely! Dancing broccoli... bring it on!

But right or wrong, the possibility of these lawsuits actually happening scares me. I hope that any courts presented with these lawsuits toss them out. The final result will probably be simply higher food costs and more confusion over what is good and bad. Almost certainly fat will be considered bad, maybe even become a convenient target for taxation. And I'm sure there will be just as many "healthy" cereal commercials around as ever. Marketers will continue to find ways to advertise to us what they think we want.

Bringing civil suits may start from noble intentions, but in the end I doubt it will solve much for us except cost us more money at the store and just make somebody(s) out there a little richer. I completely understand about preserving our right to sue, but I am worried about the consequences of someone successfully exercising that right. There is ideology in the one hand, and then there is living with the outcome of that in the other.

Over half the US has tried LC for a reason - it works. Many of us will not be swayed despite advertising efforts. So the markets and people's menus and thus the ads we see will change anyway on their own, I really believe that!

I personally went the TIVO route with my children.... now they believe commercials are only something you fast forward through. :p

I understand your point, but I have yet to see a child that does the shopping, or that does the cooking. While I could do without the constant demand for pop tarts, my children are just as likely to ask for a tuna fish... or in the case of my three year old much more likely (the kid is tuna junky). I think this is another area that many parents are guilty of going the path of least resistance. Yes companies are barraging our children with images of suger and sweets, but we as parents have the ability to say no. Todays children would love to sit in front of the TV or playstation rather than play outside, yet we as parents ultimately can control the amount of time allowed for these forms of entertainment.
Many of our generation have been raised that they are never responsible for their own poor decisions or actions. Just because someone gives you the opportunity to make a poor decision does not make them responsible for what you decide. Should we start suing credit card companies for allowing us to be fiscally unresponsible? Or maybe start suing auto manufacturers for providing 0% financing which makes it easier to buy cars we really can't afford?
The one thing I agree with you on, is it shouldn't take a federal law to limit frivelous lawsuits, but we constituents continue to look for a federal goverment to solve our problems, even though they have historically been unable to solve social issues....