http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...dc_10&printer=1

House Backs Ban on Obesity Lawsuits
42 minutes ago

By Joanne Kenen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved legislation nicknamed the "cheeseburger bill" that would block lawsuits blaming the food industry for making people fat.

Approved on a 276-139 vote, the bill came up one day after health officials announced that obesity was on the verge of surpassing tobacco use as the leading preventable cause of death in the United States and urged people to exercise more and eat a balanced diet.

The bill has backing from the White House and much of the food industry but it faces hurdles in the Senate, which has often blocked House-passed measures that would cap legal damages or protect certain industries from lawsuits.

The "cheeseburger" debate became a verbal food fight with lawmakers using words rarely heard on the House floor like "crap," "foolish" and "sanctimonious" to describe the bill or each other.

The "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" would prevent what the bill calls frivolous lawsuits against makers, distributors or sellers of food and nonalcoholic beverages arising from obesity claims.

Backers said it is needed to protect the industry against an organized onslaught of lawsuits in which trial lawyers urge fat people to look for someone to blame. Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) chairman James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said fat people should "look in the mirror."

Bill sponsor Rep. Ric Keller, a Florida Republican who calls himself a "chubby guy" with a taste for double cheeseburgers, said his legislation is about "common sense and personal responsibility."

Mostly Democratic critics, backed by some consumer groups, said the courts, not Congress, should determine when lawsuits are frivolous. North Carolina Democrat Rep. Melvin Watt said, "There's not a single pending lawsuit now that hasn't been dismissed."

The best-known case, filed by teenagers against McDonald's Corp., has been thrown out of federal court twice.

Critics said the bill sent a message to the food industry that it did not have to worry about public health. "That's the wrong message," said Massachusetts Democrat Rep. James McGovern.

Watt, who is black, called the bill "crap" when Sensenbrenner likened it to historic civil rights legislation. Watt quickly apologized.

Keller said his legislation would not block civil suits stemming from tainted foods or mislabeling -- although critics said it was so broadly worded that it would make it hard for individuals to file such suits.

The bill would block suits in state and federal courts, and dismiss any that have already been filed. A few states have already passed their own bans on fat suits, and others are considering them.

The congressional debate comes as public health officials have sounded the alarm about the number of fat Americans -- including growing numbers of children. Overweight people face numerous health risks.

John Cady, head of the National Food Processors Association, said, "This bill is a timely and needed response to the threat of lawsuits seeking to pin the responsibility for obesity in this country on the food industry." (Additional reporting by Jackie Frank in Washington and Deborah Cohen in Chicago)

Insidious advertising, often focused on children. Pop machines in schools. Soda with every meal... is this truly the American Way?

Shouldn't there be some accountability for the industries that spend billions of dollars promoting these products as part of a healthy and happy life?

I'm not saying that there are not frivolous lawsuits, but to categorically deny the right of the public to complain at all only serves to protect the notion of profits over people.

I agree with you, but I am also uncomfortable with these kinds of lawsuits. There is no consensus on what constitutes unhealthy food - there would be as many lawsuits against fatty foods as against sugary ones. Food maker simply sell what people want to buy- including from Snackwells to LC frankenfoods. This could really get out of hand, with all costs being passed to the customers, of course, and possibly resulting in new "sin taxes" on items ranging from soft drinks to cream and butter. Opening the door to these lawsuits could be a disaster.

On the other hand, I do resent the USDA's involvement in food recommendations, and industry oppositions to objective education concerning the negative effects of excess sugar and carbs and trans-fats... those that profit by opposing the spread of knowledge (that we of course require to make wise choices for ourselves) are the true villians in this to me.

I think it is always bad to ban the right to complain about something, even though most of these lawsuits are indeed frivolous. This is one of very few issues with which I have a problem forming a strong opinion. In my life, I am totally convinced that my addiction to sugar in all its deadly forms is just as strong as a heroin addiction. Proof positive: I trully believe that bingeing on sugary food could kill me, and yet I sometimes put the pleasure it brings me ahead of my own health. Drug addiction is the same, but I am not willing to say we should make all drugs available to anyone willing to take them. Yet I think that holding food companies responsible for obesity is idiotic. We all have the choice what to eat. If that choice were ever taken from the high-carbers, then what's to stop it from happening to us? At this point, of course, that doesn't seem to be the goal. I am sure, though, there are low-carbers who would love to ban bread and sugar from supermarket shelves. What we all must remember, though, is how stupid those animal rights activists look during their demonstrations against eating meat.

The right to sue any corporation should not be arbitrarily legislated against. That's just dangerous.

As one legislator commented, if the lawsuit is frivolous, it will be thrown out of court.

But the mere fact that congress is legislating so that there is no allowable check and balance (accountability) for industry to promote food is what bothers me. It's a way of closing discussion and removing the rights of the public to complain about what industry is doing.

That's a serious erosion of the right to free speech as far as I'm concerned.

It's much better to take an argument like this to court for a civil debate, than leave no alternative to people than some sort of disruptive civil disobedience or illegal activities.

I don't see the tobacco companies being protected or any other industry at large. The food industry spends billions on glamourous advertising for products that by and large are killing our children. I don't see why they shouldn't sit up and take notice. That's the intent of lawsuits... and in fact it is the effect of those very "frivolous" lawsuits that have caused industries like McDonald's to take note and proactively modify their menus to include healthier products.

In fact the recent lawsuit against Nabisco on Oreos, if I recall correctly, was immediately pulled by the person who filed it. It's intent, however, was to open the discussion and raise some eyebrows, not to actually follow through with the lawsuit. Certainly it is a positive use of the legal system this way to raise public awareness of health issues and a much better outlet than product or company vandalism.

I am torn on the subject. On one hand, I agree that people should not shift personal responsibility for their waist line unto the food manufacturers. But that's not just that. If just one person wins, it will open the floodgates to all the rapacious lawyers out there who are only waiting for a chance to start recruiting people for class action lawsuits. The litigation system is broken IMO. It's just a get rich-quick scheme.

On the other hand, the threat of litigation has already made the big food corps at least give the appearance of trying to be more health conscious, so that's a positive impact.

I don't know. Either way it seems that somebody is getting scr****ed. The only people who will win, as usual, are lawyers.

I see your point. But why did this end up in Congress in the first place - did the bill's sponser feel that these lawsuits being taken seriously was becoming inevitable? Was this proactive, or is he snuggling-up to industry? Hmm.

After the defendant has already paid through the nose for lawyers. I'm not saying that industries should be totally immune to lawsuits, but it seems to me that the lawsuit industry is the only one that cannot be easily sued - to almost no one's shock.

Many of the large, abusrd rulings are thrown out or reduced upon appeal, as well. The massive legal fees and insurance costs everyone pays to enrich trial lawyers is in every insurance and medical bill we pay, built into the costs of every product we buy.

I'm not big on "tort reform" as is often run up the pole by Republicans. But there should be common sense...on its face, a fast food company shouldn't have to deal with suits filed that have no prayer of success.

We can ignore it, but have you tried to have a baby delivered in the last five years? The lawsuit industry is driving many doctors out of that business.

I'd be happy with something that checked the lawsuit industry's ability to use courts as a weapon, a weapon we subsidize for them, by applying common sense standards to whether a suit can be filed at all, before defendants would ever have to hire a single lawyer.

Fast food suits, in my opinion, seem to fit that criteria to some degree. Fast food makers aren't the same as tobacco companies, who have a paper trail of deception and lethality.

Screwing the public runs both ways. The trial lawyer industry has been doing it for years, and deserves some better oversight in the ways that they can appropriate public resources as a subsidized weapon.

At very least, I'd love to see lawyers that specialized in doing to other lawyers what they do to most businesses. Of course, since lawyers make up the judiciary, that won't happen.

I don't like these lawsuits either. Ultimately people need to get a little educated about what they're sticking in their mouths and take a bit of responsibility for it.

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.

Hurray! Look, I hate McDonald's more than the next person. (Ask my wife who could live on 1/4 pounders and I refuse to go into McDonalds). However, these guys are only promoting what they promise - an inexpensive quick meal. McDonalds has never said how healthy their meals are. Hardee's has gone out of their way to talk about the extra fat and thickness of their burgers. Jack in the Box brags about the milk fat content of their shakes.

And most have gone out of their way to offer "healthier" alternatives. Every fast food place now has salads. They're only responding to what the public wants.

Should companies be punished for providing a reliable, necessary service? NO! Parents should be punished for feeding their kids crap 24/7 and then whining that the Kroc family is to blame.

The complete and total lack of personal accountability and responsibility that we have sown into American society is obscene. It has to be stopped. This to me is a place where we're saying "enough is enough". Nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head to eat cheeseburgers. No one has shown that a cheeseburger is chemically addictive and no one has shown that companies set out to mislead the public with respect to the healthiness of their product (though the recent KFC debacle shows how that can be put down).

And I for one don't want my BK double cheeseburger to go from 99 cents to $1.45 to cover the cost of frivolous law suits.

And I do think without tort reform and an overhaul of how we handle lawsuits in this country, we will destroy ourselves from within. So good for our congress in taking steps to stop the silliness.

H

Thank you, Heath. Excellent post.

People don't sue to invoke social change. They do it for a quick buck (they think). It's greed, pure and simple, and we all pay for it in higher insurance costs (if you can even get insurance) and higher prices.

The only thing that is driving the food corps toward healthier offerings is public demand. Look at all the "low-carb" offerings now, their not there because food corps want us to be healthy, their there becuase people want to spend their money on them and they want a piece of the "low-carb" pie!