It ended up in Congress because of the recent news about Obesity being second only to Smoking in causing (or technically being symptomatic of) premature death. With all the lawsuits out there on smoking, and a certain interest in lawsuits making them apparent against the food industry, Congress is seeking to head off additional lawsuit traffic.

But whether that traffic is legitimate or not is NOT up to congress to decide. That's why it takes years of law school and legal experience to become a judge. Not to say that there aren't bad judges out there, but the legal system was designed to protect people from unscrupulous other people, and make a disagreement something that can be handled civilly rather than with rancor.

Whether or not you think that lawsuits in general are bad things, it does, particulalry with big industry, lead to accountability for one's actions. If an industry knows that there are no repercussions, then why not dump toxins on land or dump toxins in food, or skew scientific research analysis to suit your particular business. There are unscrupulous doctors out there handing out prescriptions to people who are not even their patients, promoting drug addiction. Should those types of industries be called to account for their actions? I think they should.

(as a sideline, this health scare is exactly what Dr. Atkins predicted in 2001 when he wrote THE AGE-DEFYING DIET and discussed the rule of 20 years which predicts epidemics of diabetes, related heart disease and other underlying conditions due to dietary changes (the repercussions of lowfat). He also points out the conflict between politics and science which is the origin of a great deal of what our nation is suffering due to obesity).

So what I think you're saying is, that in our system lawsuits are an effective mechanism to induce accountability through penalties. I will agree with your examples of toxic waste and to some extent malpractice - because these entities hate to be financially penalized, and further restrictive legislation can result, so this is a good way to get compliance as a whole.

But I see the food industry as being primarily motivated by OUR pocketbooks, they may prefer to use cheap high-profit ingredients but if you don't buy it they will provide what you do want. It's not quite the same thing as those other examples, it's more in our control.

I really feel the key is education. Given the necessary knowledge, people WILL usually make wise choices for themselves - as many are indeed doing, and the market is changing. This sort of bill should not be necessary at all. But the alternative could be worse - a slew of lawsuits aimed at who? Fast food? Pepsi Co.? The Dairy Council because they promote cheese? Saturated fat? Will there someday be sin taxes on that unhealthy bacon, because it gets blamed for societal costs of heart disease - similar to what happened with Big Tobacco? (although of course the bacon is actually benign IMO).

I agree that the food industry has ruthlessly exploited our sweet-tooth with little regard to our health, but hey, that's business. We here know better and don't buy that stuff anymore. I fear that if these lawsuits begin and are taken seriously it could open a huge can of worms. We really need to get our science straight before we let the courts start pointing fingers at who sells healthy or unhealthy foods - the solution could be worse than the problem.

In a word: Huh?!!!!

People thought that Bush was bad about making incoherent statements.