I didn't notice it mentioned in any of the articles, but Stephen Joseph has a website called bantransfat.com where you can make a contribution to his efforts and get a "Don't Partially Hydrogenate Me" t-shirt and bumper sticker.

ok, so i am not a fan of trans fats either, but if McDonalds did all of this they would go out of business. Their food would taste horrible and no one would eat there. I think these lawsuits are taking away our rights to think for our selves. People are just trying to make a buck and not thinking about the impact their actions have on everyone else. The free market is what makes this country great.

If you can think for yourself, it's obvious that you damage your health -- a lot -- every time you eat at McDonald's. Assuming that as a thinking person, that's not what you want to do, you'd never eat there to begin with. So, why do you care if McDonald's goes out of business?

I have eaten Hamburgers and French Fries many times without added Sugar or MSG...and they tasted just fine. If you can't cook french fries that taste good without adding almost half a cup of sugar...then you need to consider a new career. Same with Hamburgers and MSG.

i dont car if Mcdonalds goes out of business. However, i do care if they are forced out of business by a lawsuit that essentially takes away our freedom of choice. Mcdonalds may not be healthy, but it is not going to kill me. i guess i am just old fashoned, but i just wish people could look out for themselves. Our country was founded to give us the right to think for ourselves, passing laws (or any successful lawsuits) will essentially force Mcdonalds (or similar companies) out of business - removing choice from the process. that is not the example we should be setting for our children. we should be telling them to think for themselves. they should know what is right or wrong, healthy or unhealthy. - sorry to jump on the soap box, but this stuff really gets to me...

Choice is what I wante people to have. They can only have choice when they know what they're eating. How hard would it be for McDonalds to put the nutritional info (including ingredients) right on the box ??? If I had known their burgers had MSG, I would have stopped eating there years ago.

People don't know because McDonald's doesn't have to tell them, it is so hard to find out (while in the store), and most importantly because we all expect that French Fries are made with Potatoes, Salt, and Cooking Oil. In fact, they are really using Potatoes, Salt, Shortening, Table Sugar, and Corn Syrup. The last two are not normal ingredients.

People can make good health choices only if they're educated about the choices available and which choices lead to good health. I like France's approach to education and support. History shows that populations, particularly Americans, will choose the health options that are most convenient. And corporations will do whatever is most profitable. Good food and good health is neither convenient nor profitable at this time. Until that changes, we need an interventionist approach; the laissez-faire way has been a very expensive failure.

i dont want to get into a political discussion (we kind of already, but whatever) but, the US doesnt need to become any more socialist - that is definatly not what this country is about. this country has thrived because people have been free to make their own decisions - mcdonalds should be allowed to sell unhealthy food if they want to, just like i should be able to buy a greasy burger if i want it. I know it is not healthy, but it is really good. it was my decision to buy. there are so many more important thing for the govt and court systems to be doing.

Government has more important things to do than concern itself with the basic health of its citizens?! Like what - invade Iraq, try to drill for oil in environmentally fragile parks, further concentrate wealth among the already wealthy with tax breaks? Which of these activities is more important than encouraging a fundamentally healthy populace?

Be careful for what you ask. Remember the decades when most of the things that we believe are good were strongly discouraged by the mainstream in no uncertain terms? Do you believe that the government should have banned red meat, eggs, coffee, and butter? After all, doesn't the government have a responsibility to protect us from eating these vile foods that cause obesity and heart disease?

Or better yet, the government should require that we all eat according to their "Food Pyramid" and fine people accordingly. Any parent that does not adhere to the food pyramid is guilty of child neglect and abuse - and what more important role does government have than to protect our youngest, most innocent, and most defenseless members of our society from their negligent and abusive parents?

And how about all of those charlatans out there preaching unhealthy eating habits - markettiing death and disease to millioins of people with their claims. Why, those low-carb docs should have been muzzled long ago!

Notice how this lawsuit got started - a lawyer reads a couple of articles and then files a huge lawsuit. Boy, that's really researching your case! He claims in his suit that Nabisco is doing absolutely nothing to even explore alternatives and ends up dropping his suit when it turns out that he is wrong. The signs of more of his stellar case preparation!

Given how many things that we have believed were bad or were good and how often we have had to revise those opinions, I don't think government has any business using its heavy hand to impose what people can and can't eat - especially given how political and special interests get intertwined into such policies.

Let them provide information that people can use or not use as they choose. Some people will challenge the information - as we have done for decades. Many people will ignore it. That is and should be their right.

It's people's right to eat as they please only so long as it doesn't affect me, primarily through monies wasted on unnecessarily high insurance premiums, drug co-payments, medcial costs on obesity and ailments stemming from it. Science has never indicated that a diet high in processed and junk foods is healthy. Moreover, I'm not in favor of dictating what people eat, just using incentives and subsidies for what we know to be healthy, so that health is within reach of all of us.

The solution to this is to greatly trim back the role of government and insurance. It is no coincidence that the segments of our economy with long standing out of control cost increases are the same ones where people have given up their personal authority and responsibility.



First off, that's not exactly the "interventionist" approach you previously said is needed.

Second, who gets to decide "what we know to be healthy"? The same people that gave us the Food Pyramid? The same people that told people for decades that we should refrain from red meat, eggs, and butter?

Don't be so quick to invoke the power of goverment just because you think that, this time, they might be acting in a manner consistent with what YOU believe is best. To do so is to invite others to invoke that power to enforce what THEY believe is best regardless of what you believe.

RE:"Government has more important things to do than concern itself with the basic health of its citizens?! Like what - invade Iraq, try to drill for oil in environmentally fragile parks, further concentrate wealth among the already wealthy with tax breaks? Which of these activities is more important than encouraging a fundamentally healthy populace?"

Any number that I can think of: Maybe like figuring out a way to provide adequate affordable housing (subsidize Habitat for Humanity), fund local food banks, protecting wildlife preserves, improving mental health services, etc I'm with Wbahn.....give us the information, but do not impose mandatory dietary restrictions. I think that folks operating restaurants should be able to serve whatever they wish and also should be able to decide if they allow smoking on not. My (considerbly underweight) husband commented today, "What the hell ever happened to the results of the Boston Tea Party?"

Frankly, if you can't figure out that eating Biggie French Fries every day is potentially not good for your weight/health, you are in really big trouble in the first place.

Can you imagine the dealers out on the street corners at 3 a.m. peddling Cheetos?

Kay

2 for 1 dealer ??? The dealer sells some guy a joint/roach and shortly thereafter, he is back buying cheetos and cookie dough.

Now, here is the real issue...why is it that we are told McDonald's fries are bad for us...but, that Potatoes are essential to a healthy diet. Seems to be a contradiction, doesn't it.

So, why is that everyone accepts that McDonald's Fries are bad for you, but potatoes are an essential part of a healthy diet ??? Same with popcorn... Why is it that everyone accepts that popcorn is a junk food...but still believes that corn and whole grains are good for you ??? What about potato chips...are they not just fried potatoes ???

What about vegetable oils ? After all, doesn't even the USDA/AHA admit that vegetable oils lower cholesterol. So, why is it that everyone believes junk food is junk simply because it is fried in vegetable oil ???

Almost noone (consumer wise) could tell you the difference between hydrogenated vegetable oil and pure vegetable oil...So, why is it that when you combine two foods that the USDA says have beneficial health effects and a third (hydrogenated vegetable oil) that most people think is the same as one that lowers Cholesterol (pure vegetable oil)...that you all the sudden get a "junk food" which raises cholesterol, makes you obese, and gives you diabetes ? It all seems like a blatant contradiction.