When tobacco companies were first beginning to worry about suits filed against them, they claimed that the next step was law suits against makers of sugary, fatty food. Dismissed as hyperbole at the time, that future may not be all that far off, as some activists, seeing the societal harm in our national obesity, look for ways to sue or legislate against junk food.
Interesting, if worrisome, reading. I mean, I know I eat too many fries, too much ice cream, too much fat, sugar, and salt.
But it’s my choice. If we start legally coddling the citizenry over what they choose to eat (and, let’s face it, nobody goes into eating junk food thinking it’s good for them), then when do we start coddling them (us) over what they (we) choose to believe, enjoy, or participate in?
If the public is a bunch of children, sooner or later they are going to be treated that way.
on the other hand, are we to trust the opinion of an admitted junkie?
heh.
They can take my fries from me when they pry them from my salty, greasy fingers …
Actually, that’s how Katherine manages to do it.
I always thought that part of the reason for the rule of law was to protect other forlks from our misdeeds. If I was looking to live where the morality police rule, I think I’d choose a theocracy (and there are a few around).
the rule of law should also protect us from diet “may cause diarrhea” fat substitutes. now that smoking has been eliminated from many restaurants, we should start on a letter-writing campaign. i’m looking forward to the day when i step into a restaurant and the host says, in a delightfully deadpan british butler voice,
“Rrrrrabbit food or non rrrrabbit food, madame?”
The problem with turning to the rule of law is that such folks will claim (with some measure of accuracy) that society (i.e., all of us) pays a huge amount in overall health care costs (insurance premiums, Medicare/Medicaid costs, lost business productivity) for the fat-guzzling antics of a few, and so society has an interest in restricting it.
Problem being, of course, that society (if you consider what the majority of folks are doing) have already voted, and they’ve voted to Super-Size. So the movement instead becomes a desire by some folks to save us from ourselves, which is always dubious law.
The Lawsuit Diet! Maybe this one will work! And think of all the jobs to be had in the growth industry of smuggling snacks from Canada and Mexico. The improvement in the Mob’s image — not slimey drug dealers but valiant snack vendors.
The Lawsuit Diet! Maybe this one will work! And think of all the jobs to be had in the growth industry of smuggling snacks from Canada and Mexico. The improvement in the Mob’s image — not slimey drug dealers but valiant snack vendors.
Double posting — I tried to hit ‘remember me’ too late.
There is one problem with Dave’s comment “that society (i.e., all of us) pays a huge amount in overall health care costs (insurance premiums, Medicare/Medicaid costs, lost business productivity) for the fat-guzzling antics of a few” : The majority of Americans are overweight. I suppose that the few non-fatties could file a class action against the rest of us.
nah, that strikes too close to asking for a pound of flesh…
Sue the folks not making non-fattening alternatives available. On my wages, I can rarely afford the time to make good food, and I certainly can’t buy it prepared for me. Not to mention that I gain weight by not eating, not by eating. Hey, we could also apply legislation based on how many hours spent sedentary at your job requires you to have so many hours of access to gym equipment, since, well, a membership to a gym is also not within my budget of time/money. Oh, and have I mentioned that I want clothing cuts and true sizing to be listed on the labels, too? Heck, if we’re going to be silly, I want full-range silliness. None of this partial, half-hearted effort. Laughing burns calories.
Of course, for most of human history people have not lacked the means to diet (often involuntarily) or exercise (ditto). Perhaps we should lobby for a fall of civilization to get back to those good old days.
(And Margie is, of course, correct. Don’t know what I was thinking of.)
Another problem with Daves’ comments about the high cost of health care: Frivolous lawsuits. An oral surgeon friend HAS TO carry half a million dollars in insurance coverage because of the enormous amount of lawsuits being filed against medical and dental practitioners. Someone has a tingle in their cheek, so they sue, thinking that hey, I’m going to get an early retirement. Little do they realize that between the taxes and the lawyers 40%, they’re only going to get 25% of that million dollar jackpot!!
Actually, I had been thinking about that. What a lot of these stories don’t represent is the link between weight and poverty. When we think of poverty we tend to think of children who are starving in other countries; the thin, brown-skinned children of Ethiopia that popped up regularly on our TV sets during the mid-80s. What we don’t think about is our own culture and how it’s the families of low (and even some medium) economic status that are being fed the most fat in their diets. Chips, hamburgers, ice cream…are cheap. (Heck, I could get a half-gallon of vanilla ice milk for less than a head of lettuce last week.) They make you feel more full, and when you’re playing the starvation game, when your family is cutting corners to find out what you can eat, that’s what you’ll find. Public schools have nutritional guidelines, but in poorer sections of the country you’ll see the much-touted “ketchup as a vegetable,” and not a lot of “healthy choices.”
You’ll see a lot of people in their mid-20s working in the tech field 60+ hour weeks, with not a lot of nutrition or extra time in their budgets. Yes, we’re working very hard (and I have to remind myself that while my body may have an adequate food reserve, I still have to eat to feed my brain) but we’re not working -out-.
Amongst the “elite” you’ll find that money can buy you better health.
Well, that’s always been the case. Wealth = Health, except where it enables more sophisticated forms of self-destruction.
Adam, I’d certainly agree that there are a variety of reasons for health care cost increases (to pick up on something Margie’s often argued to me, a goodly chunk comes from American attitudes toward entitlement to the Most Expensive Machine that Goes ‘Ping,’ regardless of whether a couple of aspirin would do the job nearly as well). I find all-inclusive numbers like “Overeating costs us $347 billion in extra health care costs annually” usually suspicious, unless the basis for the number is shown.
Still, obesity does has health care cost impacts. The question is, as Margie notes, if our society has chosen to be overweight, should any “enabler” of that be sued?
MT, you’re correct about current poverty often being associated with obesity (never mind the ice cream: cheap, starchy foods have had poorer folks being fat — and poorly nourished — for decades). Still, that’s not the whole answer, or even, I suspect, the majority of it. Just as not-exercising is a choice most people make, not-eating-right is a choice.
How about the fact that we trade our children’s food at school (which I remember as not really exciting, but certainly edible) for lots of money from Taco Bell, KFC, McDonalds, etc. Prop 13 (in CA ) took away all that “extra” money, so now we have the most destructive food habit that you can have as the daily fair in the cafeteria. I know people who daily serve fast food for dinner; who wouldn’t know a vegetable if it jumped up and bit them (which would at least get it noticed). And let’s not get started about portion sizes. We are doing a great job of “super sizing” our nation. And it’s not healthy.
However, just as I don’t believe that we should outlaw cigarettes (not that I smoke or have ever cared to), I don’t believe we can legislate health. It would help if we had kids go to PE everyday throughout their time in school, and it might be wise to encourage folks to be healthy. But the day we try to enforce the “health code”, is the day I move to France, cause I want to go with an eclar in one hand and a glass of Courvoisier in the other.
Mmmmmm. Eclairs & Courvosier …
Wouldn’t that be a dining faux pas?? I think a nice Brute Champagne would be better served with the Eclair.
Dave – I don’t think any enabler should be held liable for my gluttony. I guess the point I was getting at is that the only real winners in this case, the case against tobacco companies, and breweries or other adult beverage creators (don’t laugh, you know it’s going to happen) are going to be the lawyers involved.
I think you can draw a line somewhere. Someone who manufactures Caltrop Candies for Kids (Now with Real Ground Glass Filling!) can be reasonably sued for the carnage that ensues. I even think the tobacco industry can be sued, given their long history of categorically denying any damage caused by their product.
I think it gets fuzzier when you talk about alcohol manufacturers, since they’ve never denied (at least not for several decades) that booze is dangerous if imbibed irresponsibly, and that’s certainly been common public knowledge. Ditto for the fatty/sugary/salty food industry.
Or maybe I’m just willing to draw the line so that my own vices remain untouched.
With the candies, was the glass filling listed with the ingredients?? Yum.
I’m not a smoker, but I’ve known that repeated exposure to tobacco smoke can lead to cancer. I also know that excessive drinking can lead to liver problems, and that the flame broiled whopper I love and crave will probably give me a coranary. But thats the thing, I know about the health risks involved, regardless of which vice I choose. I think by supporting the vices we like, and kicking the others that we find distasteful, we’re weakening our own position. Oh my god, I sound like the poster boy for the NRA.
Well that’s the question — the knowledge of the risk. I’d argue that anyone who got hooked on smoking prior to the tobacco companies conceding that, yes, despite all of their dummied up lab work and publicity campaigns, smoking was actually linked to cancer, should have the right to sue the snot out of them.
On the other hand, there’s a large chunk of “distasteful” influencing my judgment here, which is, as you point out, dangerous — it’s never a good idea to confuse aesthetics with morals (and to confuse either with the law).
Truer words were never spoken. Doesn’t it make you think about the litigation road we’re on? Tobacco, Fast foods….. I’m sure alcohol won’t be far off. The next step would be suing for illegal vices. Someone get’s a little to much rat poison with their crack and they’re suing their dealer for bad junk. Or they’re doctor prescribes Ridlin instead of Valium. Off to the attorney to file for mental anguish!!
Well, if my doctor prescribed me Ritalin instead of Valium, I suspect I’d have grounds for a malpractice suit …
There are certainly plenty of screwball law suits out there. On the other hand, I find that a lot of the biggest advocates for tort reform are from corporations that would love to avoid suits for their own scofflaw activities.
When one considers the number of comments on this post as compared to others on Dave’s blog, it seems that folks definetly have something to say about this issue. I will draw no conclusions (not being a statistical minded person), but I can tell that this topic drew interest.
I’ve been thinking that as well. Fat — and personal responsibility for a good diet — is something that strikes close to home.
A little to close to home….. I can’t help it if I enjoy the tart tanginess of deep fried pork rinds dipped in blue cheese. Speaking of which, what exactly is a pork rind anyway? Similar to an orange rind except less healthy?
It’s when you break out the pork zester that you have to start worrying.
I’ll pass on the pork rinds and blue cheese, both of which are obviously an Abomination against Man and God.
On the other hand, I’d appreciate it if you’d pass the Lays Au Grauten Potato Chips, which have enough grease to stock a JiffyLube, and enough salt to stock a small inland sea.
Nothing like following up a deep fried Monte Christo with some Lays or Pork rinds. I can actually feel my heart starting to fibulate!!
Oh, I apologize for the bad analogy (Ritalin instead of Valium). I’m not up on my presciption drugs. I hope it wasn’t to awful that my point wasn’t lost.
If your point was that folks sue for mental anguish over things that don’t make any objective difference, no, it wasn’t lost.
Which ties in with the other theme. Is mental anguish in the eyes of the beholder? Is the anguisher responsible, or the anguishee? The best we’ve come up with is the “ordinary person” analogy — would an ordinary person be anguished over this? We apply it as a legal standard, and we try to enforce it through the jury system. But that standard is far from precise.
It would seem that in our judicial system, anguish is determined by a group of my peers (he he he). It seems that some would say that spilling a cup of coffee in my lap is worth a few million. And “normal” seems to be broken up on many lines these days: ethnicity, income, sexual orientation, etc. I think anguish is greatly determined by your own background and the background of the jury hearing your case.
Exactly. The idea of a “jury of your peers” being possible (or, of possible, desirable) is not necessarily always a positive thing.
Not that I have any brilliant alternatives, mind you.
On the other hand, the infamous “woman spills coffee, gets zillions of dollars” case is probably not a good “poster boy” example for tort reform. McDonalds did keep their coffee significantly hotter than the norm, causing the woman third degree burns in some very unpleasant places. She originally sued for only $20K to cover her expenses. Only when it went to court and McD’s had to admit that it knew that their coffee was dangerously hotter that its competitors, that previous injuries had occurred, and that they had decided to keep the coffee that hot anyway, was the plaintiff awarded $200K in compensation (which was reduced 20% for her part in the accident).
McD’s was also hit with $2.7MM in punitive damages (later reduced to $480K) for behavior which the judge characterized as “reckless, callous and willful.” Punitive damages are not meant as a reward for the plaintiff (though that’s who gets them), but as a punishment for the defendent, and if they rise into the millions of dollars, it’s usually because that’s what it takes for a multi-billion dollar company to take note and correct themselves. McD basically knew there was a significant hazard and not only didn’t do anything about it, but intentionally failed to do so.
ATLA.org (not to mention Too Much Coffee Man) has a more complete summary of this case, and Snopes has a good discussion from both sides of the tort coin.
</soapbox>