Lawyer wants to ban Oreo cookies!

[RZetlin]

Time to stock up on Oreos!

Suit Seeks to Ban Kids From Eating Oreos (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030512/ap_on_fe_st/oreo_suit_1)

[Alaskanbullworm]

What next, banning gum because kids might choke on their own spit?

I give up with lawsuits these days, it's not like they're smoking. It's not even addictive.

[The Landstander]

*blink*



*tries to speak, words don't come out*













*head explodes*

[Zach Logan]

*blink*



*tries to speak, words don't come out*













*head explodes*

DITTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Squall]

Just wait until some hotshot lawyer tries to ban cartoons because they "dilute reality in the minds of our youth, and even our population in general" or some nonsense like that...

[EinBebop]

Those things are still legal?

[Elven Moon]

We've got to hide Cookie Monster before the squad comes to take him away for being a mass murderer!

[Galaxia]

FARK. FARK. FAAARRRKKK!

...don't these people have ANYTHING better to do?

I guess not...people have to be looking out for the Cookies of Mass Destruction.

Nobody better take my Oreos away, dagnabit!!!!

[Evil Dr. Reef]

THIS MAN IS A FOOL.

[EinBebop]

A fool? What do you mean? Won't someone please think of the children?

I'm not against banning Oreos altogether. I do think you should have to be at least 21 to buy them, however.

[BeastBoyWonder]

It's not even addictive.

Not addictive!!?? Try telling that to the Martian Manhunter! :p
(sorry, someone had to do it)

Anyway, I think that this entire concept is absolutely ridiculous. If this guy really feels that the industry needs to be changed, there are other measures to be tried before jumping straight into a lawsuit. I'd like to see him try some alternative solutions that would probably elicit a more positive reaction than a ludicrous lawsuit that the general public would ignore.

[Senbei Norimaki]

It looks like people will have to have ID to buy oreos.

The funny thing is if they made oreos illegal. It will only make people want them more. The teens will be going crazy for oreos. They will also have to try and stop people from smugling oreos into the US from the Canadian & Mexican borders. If people can't get what they want legally they will get it illegally.

[zmanjz]

you know.... it's morons like that who make all lawyers look bad.

Ok, I've reviewed as much of the case as is available using westlaw... and either the reporter's got something wrong, ot this lawyer's incompetent.

He's trying to sue Nabisco because they aren't listing the content of a fat not yet legally requireed to be on labels.

There are multiple problems with this. not the least of which is: First he would need standing. (Someone who has been hurt by this omission) then he would need a cause of action. Although it's concieveable that there's something under the Uniform Commercial Code that may grant a cause of Action, I don't see one that I'm already aware of.

Next, the obvious thing to sue for is a requirement that they add this label to future packages. Suing to stop the sale of Oreos entirely is ludicrious. that's not even a valid remedy in this type of case. The type of fat involved is not inherently dangerous, so there can't be a cause of action to force a company to stop selling it.

So no matter what, this guy's a crappy attorney trying to circumvent the Administrative Law system unnecessarily.

[Patrick Bateman]

In the words of my good friend: "whahuh?!"

[Zechs]

Wow just wow. The fact that people even think of letting poppycock like this go to court just makes me wonder. Maybe we should ban stupid lawsuits and while we're let's ban stupid people from living in the states now that would solve our problem.

[Weatherman]

He'll be laughed out of court within 10 minutes of entering. Could be that this is just a publicity study to publicize the fact that this stuff is in Oreos and alot of other stuff.

[Feslmogh]

In the words of my good friend: "whahuh?!"
Or down here in the south:"Do-wha...?"

Don't let them take away my Double-Stuff!

That lawer ->http://mysmilies.creativesell.net/otn/funny/rolling_eyes.gif

[Bud 'n Lou]

I saw the title of this thread, and assumed the lawsuit was over something like a consumer wanting compensation because they sprained their wrist while twisting apart an Oreo. So at least it's not that. I do think that food labels should be required to list all nutrition information, though. There's no excuse for them not to. It's just greed on the part of the company, because they don't want to scare off consumers. I don't see how anything is going to be accomplished by suing Nabisco, though.

[Lucky Bob]

I saw the title of this thread, and assumed the lawsuit was over something like a consumer wanting compensation because they sprained their wrist while twisting apart an Oreo. So at least it's not that. I do think that food labels should be required to list all nutrition information, though. There's no excuse for them not to. It's just greed on the part of the company, because they don't want to scare off consumers. I don't see how anything is going to be accomplished by suing Nabisco, though.

B&L, some things just go without being said. Everyone knows that eating lots of hamburgers will make you look like Jabba the Hutt. Everyone knows that Soylent Green is people. Everyone knows that Oreos are not health food.

So really, it should be no surprise that Oreos contain fat. I don't blame the company for not telling everyone, I naturally assumed that they weren't good for you in excess because my mother actually (gasp!) taught me that junk food was bad for you! Common sense should tell you that eating too much of anything is bad.

So, I don't think it's Nabisco who's at fault, here. If anyone is motivated by greed, it's the people behind this suit.

[EinBebop]

All humor aside on my part...

Keep an open mind here... greed? Is there any mention of money being involved in this suit? And for those that seem to not have actually read this article, this is not like the McDonalds lawsuits whining that food is fattening. "Trans fat is not the same thing at all. Very few people know about it,"

...

The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, which advises the government on health policy, said last summer that this kind of fat should not be consumed at all. It is directly associated with heart disease and with LDL cholesterol, the 'bad' kind that accumulates in arteries.

...

The Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) has tried to force food companies to list trans fat content with other nutritional information on food packages, but manufacturers have challenged the rule. Even food labeled "low in cholesterol" or "low in saturated fats" may have high percentages of trans fats. Now, I don't think the people involved in this case actually expect to win such a ban. I think they expect to accomplish two things:

a) Make people aware. I for one had never heard of trans fats before. They've already accomplished this goal, despite the fact that most media outlets are probably playing up the sensationalism and downplaying that they are trying to expose a real danger. I'll be curious to see what impact this has on Oreo's sales if I remember to look for such info later.

b) Use that awareness to create pressure to pass laws forcing these manufacturers to list their trans fats contents. I'd certainly be a supporter of this.

Here are some snippets I pulled out of a couple of other articles:

Lawsuit seeks to ban sale of Oreos to children in California (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/12/MN209384.DTL)
Legally, Joseph is relying on a provision in California law that says companies aren't liable for a commonly used but unhealthy product if it is well-known in the community that the product is unsafe.

"But this product, trans fat, is not commonly known to be unsafe," he said. "That's why trans fat is a far stronger case than tobacco or McDonald's because people know those are dangerous."


You can also go to the guy's website: BanTransFats.com (http://www.bantransfats.com/)

[Bud 'n Lou]

B&L, some things just go without being said. Everyone knows that eating lots of hamburgers will make you look like Jabba the Hutt. Everyone knows that Soylent Green is people. Everyone knows that Oreos are not health food.

So really, it should be no surprise that Oreos contain fat. I don't blame the company for not telling everyone, I naturally assumed that they weren't good for you in excess because my mother actually (gasp!) taught me that junk food was bad for you! Common sense should tell you that eating too much of anything is bad.

So, I don't think it's Nabisco who's at fault, here. If anyone is motivated by greed, it's the people behind this suit.
Of course everyone knows that certain foods are bad for you. But many people are on diets where they need to know the amounts of certain things in the food they're eating, either for health reasons, or if they're just trying to get/stay in shape. They shouldn't have to go through any more trouble than to look at the label to find out what's going into their bodies.

[kiddiesunshine]

At last, we have our priorities straight! We shouldn't have been using our energy for efforts such as helping the poor and achieving peace. Our focus should've been cookies! It all makes sense now! Die, Oreos! Die! Fight the real enemy!

**rips up a picture of the president of Nabisco**

[Jade_GL]

Not addictive!!?? Try telling that to the Martian Manhunter!
(sorry, someone had to do it)

LOL! That was great, I was going to say the same thing!!!!!

Ok, here's the deal. they don't hide the fact that Oreos have this type of fat. In fact, tons of food on the markets have this type of fat in them, almost every snack that is processed does. They appear on the label not as transfatty acids, but as their names, such as partially-hydrogenated soybean oil, etc. It's not listed as a seperate fat on the Nutritional breakdown, ie - where it says Fat, Cholesterol, Sodium, Protein, etc. Still it is a listed ingredient. If you take the time to read the list of ingredients, then what's the problem? As a consumer, the information is there, why not use it?

If people do not read package ingredients and do not know what they are consuming, well, maybe they should learn what partially-hydrogenated oils are before buying products with them in it.

Yes, these fats are more dangerous than other fats. I had a whole lecture over them in my required Health Course in college. Still, it's not that hard to read what is in your food and make an informed decision as a consumer as to what to eat. What, are we going to have surgeon general warnings on cookies and crackers now? Seriously, if you keep nformed about what you put in your cake hole, this shouldn't be surprising.

Now, on a radio show this morning, the radio personality said that 40% of the packaged products on the market have these trans fats in them. I can't confirm this, but I do know that they are in darn near every prepackaged snackfood. I know when I eat them, I read the ingredients on what I eat for the most part. I just don't care if I eat a few of these once in a while.

I have a bag of Honey Nut Chex Mix here. Let's read the ingredients -->

wheat flour, degermed yellow corn meal, whole wheat, suger, partially-hydrogenated soybean oil....

Wow, it's right there on the package! I know my sarcasm is a bit pointed here, but I really get miffed about people saying that something is *unknown* when it's really written on the package. Simply reading it and then going to an online source (or the library) to find out what exactly partially-hydrogenated (or other trans fats) are called is not too hard.

Anyway, my point is that information is out there and that people should be more involved in finding out what they put into their bodies, whether it be knowing where your meat or veggies come from or what is in your snack foods. This is nothing new and shouldn't be something to sue over. People not reading the labels and not understanding ingredients are the problem. Take a simple nutrition class, read a book, or look online for five minutes and you can get a good idea of what you should and should not avoid. Poeple should be taking control of what they do, not blaming it on someone else.

[Jedigreedo]

Hmm, this is actually quite interesting. This lawyer I wouldn't say is an idiot, he's actually looking out for others, specifically kids' health. It's obvious stuff such as oreos are fattening, but actually being dangerous was unheard of. I think everybody's making a big deal out of this because Oreos are that popular, but if people actually read the whole article and put aside the popularity of Oreos, then they'll see that this situation is way different.

The guy doesn't actually seem to be out on an ego crusade, just caring for the people, and it's not some half-baked thing personal issue, this is actual facts. That is highly respectable, IMO.

[Stewie]

Now I have a craving for oreos. Off to the store I guess.
Mmmmm, trans-fats.

[Jade_GL]

It's obvious stuff such as oreos are fattening, but actually being dangerous was unheard of.

It's not that they're so dangerous, just more dangerous to health than other fats. But anything can be taken in moderation. Also, this is not unheard of. It's written right on the label, Sure, they don't list all of the effects that prolonged eating of foods could cause, but they don't do that for any food. These fats are in tons of prepackaged foods. TONS. And if people would read the labels, they'd see what is in their foods.

I find it more disturbing that people don't read the ingredients and labels to foods. If people did and informed themselves, this wouldn't be an issue.

[Nick Biped]

Well, I guess we can see some growth in the black market Oreo industry sometime soon. :p

But seriously, I can maybe understand why some people want to make others more aware of what ingredients are in food and such. However, I think that's up to the consumer more than anything else. And I think using a lawsuit to try and convey this info is a bit silly.

[Mackenzie Rainelle]

Or down here in the south:"Do-wha...?"


Or my personal favorites: "Whazis?" or "Say-huh?"

[Cyber E.]

There aren't enough periods in the world to express my thoughts on this subject...

-aJb

[Sandro]

Oh Lord, now our Oreos are being threatened?! Well, then again, we can sue anyone for anything in today's world. After all, it's practically the fastest way to make money.

I know what I'll do; I'll sue the sun for overexposure to UV rays and potential hospitalization due to skin cancer. That'll make me some big bucks!

[Samoht]

DITTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
double ditto!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (go to gogeta's post if ur confused)

[samurai_miaka]

Dumb lawyer, dumb case. Soon they'll be trying to ban sugar because it tastes good. :p

[turbomog007]

*Sitting on an edge of a pile of Oreo cookies holding a shotgun* If anyone wants to take my Oreos they need to go through me first

[Red]

*blink*



*tries to speak, words don't come out*













*head explodes*
EXACTLY!!!!

[EinBebop]

If people do not read package ingredients and do not know what they are consuming, well, maybe they should learn what partially-hydrogenated oils are before buying products with them in it. I never assumed it was good for me, but I never knew it was quite that bad for me either. And you hit on what I think is the point of this whole lawsuit: to teach people what these chemicals are. :)

[EinBebop]

It's not that they're so dangerous, just more dangerous to health than other fats. But anything can be taken in moderation. "...There is no safe amount of trans fat in the diet." - The Institute of Medicine, from the article I linked earlier.

[EinBebop]

And I think using a lawsuit to try and convey this info is a bit silly.I guarantee you awareness of transfat is now at an all-time high.

[Jade_GL]

My point is it's not something that's hidden from people. Eating trans fats won't kill you, it is more dangerous than other forms of fat though. Still, if people just read packages and be aware of what they put in their mouths, this wouldn't even be necessary. It's like we've become a nation where even if it says the exact ingredients on a label, we still complain because we didn't think about what we were eating. Well duh, I'm sorry, but I think if the information is out there and readily available (I learned about this stuff years ago in a simple introductory health course and from other sources) then it's not something that should spawn a lawsuit.

I understand how people feel, but then again I'm just some girl from Maine and I've known about this for years. When you eat fatty, prepackaged foods, there is some element of risk that you are eating something that has more chemicals and preservatives in it then say, organic trail mix. But it says it on the label, right on the list of ingredients. I just don't see how this is resolved, unless they say that there has to be a warning on the package. And that's just inherent in the fact that you're eating a really unnatural food that has unnatural things in it, like partially-hydrogenated oils and whatnot. Who believes that something called a cheese doodle can actually has nothing strange in it? Or an Oreo? I may sound cynical, but I wish people would take more care to read ingredients and labels and actually see what they are eating. Then choose alternatives. It's not hard to spot, but then again, I heard 40% of foods have this stuff in them, and all of us have been eating this stuff for years and years.

I understand the article, but it's not new news. It's old, and no one cared about it when I was talking about it 3 or 4 years ago. It's not something that's been actively hidden, it's written on the label. It's not as if they want to outlaw this stuff outright, but they want more information on the label right? I understand that, but I don't think that a lawsuit is the best way to go about doing this and increasing awareness. It just reeks of money grubbing to me.

[Good Ol' Batmanuel!]

Last night, Jay Leno said that the case has been dropped. Woo!

[Cyber E.]

The world of news revolves around NBC's Late Night programming. @_@

-aJb

[Parallax]

Even if the case is over this is stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Man, I don't even eat oreos! NAW!

[pabcool]

*cracks up*

Oookay... Soon, they'll have someone try to ban lawsuits!

"Lawyer bans lawyers" Hehe...

[turbomog007]

*cracks up*

Oookay... Soon, they'll have someone try to ban lawsuits!

"Lawyer bans lawyers" Hehe...

And all those alive to see that rejoiced a great rejoice and all the world lived in peace and happiness forever and ever :p

[EinBebop]

UPDATED PRESS RELEASE FROM STEPHEN JOSEPH

OF

BANTRANSFATS.COM

I am pleased to announce that we are voluntarily dismissing the Oreo lawsuit. The factual and legal basis for the lawsuit when it was filed was that the American people did not know about trans fat. At best, perhaps 10-15 percent knew. The American people were being kept in the dark by the food manufacturers. The word “trans fat” is not even on food labels. That was then. This is now.

After three days of incredible national publicity, everyone in America knows about trans fats, and if anybody doesn’t, I don’t know where on earth they’ve been hiding. The factual and legal basis for the lawsuit has totally disappeared. I certainly could not tell a court now that nobody knows about trans fat.

Here is an e-mail that I received from a lady that made me realize that the lawsuit had been successful, and that it was no longer necessary:

“You have me reading labels! I picked up only two out of many boxes of children’s cereal’s yesterday in the grocery store, and two of them contained partially hydrogenated soybean oil – also saw it in Cool Whip and Nestles instant hot chocolate. My God there’s a monster out there. My husband came home with a package of Chips Ahoy “Light” cookies, and I grabbed them and read the label. You guessed it – they have partially hydro oils!”

Did that lady have a right to know? Or would you have preferred Kraft and the other food manufacturers to have kept her totally in the dark?

Here's another one:

“I was unaware of trans fats myself. I have always been a label reader but never knew to look for hydrogenated oils as a substance to avoid. It is scary to think how long I have been consuming trans fat against my will.”

And another from a young girl:

"My name is -------. I read about trans fats on msn today. I thank you for warning me about them. I love Oreos but I see your point. they should cut out trans fat. I may be only fourteen but I feel I can make a difference by telling people in the small town I live in about trans fats. I never have heard of them until today, May 14,2003. I wish you good luck on your law suit and see your purpose. I really don't have time for a phone call but I check my email a lot, my email address is -----------. Thank you, and Good Luck!!!"

I have received thousands of similar e-mails.

It is just great that Kraft has now announced in response to the lawsuit that it is “actively exploring ways to reduce trans fats in Oreo.” Kraft is accepting that there is a problem that must be solved. Good. Hopefully, we will see a trans fat-free version of the Oreo soon, so that those of us who love Oreos (I really do) don’t have to eat unsafe trans fats to enjoy them. We have that right, don’t we? Kraft should give us all a choice.

It's now up to each food manufacturer to decide how to respond to the new public awareness of the existence and danger of trans fats. Let’s hope that they respond responsibly.

No money was ever requested in the lawsuit. There is no greed factor. No one has made a penny out of it. And it did not cost one penny of taxpayers' money.

Incidentally, I am generally against lawsuits against food manufacturers, and I am certainly against the MacDonald’s case which I think is totally ridiculous. I've said that over and over again this week. Everyone knows that fast food is unhealthy and they have to be responsible for their own actions.

Trans fat was a unique situation, because so few people knew about it, it isn’t on the label, Kraft was opposing trans fat labeling saying it would be “confusing,” and the FDA says that we should eat none of it.

There should be no more trans fat lawsuits, because everyone now knows about it, and if anyone files one they should consider me to be an opponent. The existence and danger of trans fats is now common knowledge as a result of the last three days of publicity and as far as I am concerned there is no longer any basis for suing anyone.

And to those of you who thought I was infringing your freedom, remember, when the facts are suppressed you have no freedom. You had a right to know about trans fats, and now you do. What you do with the information is entirely your concern. If you knowingly want to continue to eat trans fats, enjoy!

Thank you to all of our supporters, each and every one of you. We made a difference. A big difference. And thanks Kraft for working on a trans fat-free version of the Oreo. I hope that I get to taste the first one.As I said, two goals: a) awareness -=Mission Accomplished=- and b) pressure to specifically label transfats on product packaging... the wheels are in motion, and I give it a year.

[dendawg]

As I said, two goals: a) awareness -=Mission Accomplished=- and b) pressure to specifically label transfats on product packaging... the wheels are in motion, and I give it a year.

Translation: "I've succeeded in getting the attention I've so desperately needed. Buh-bye, clueless Nimrods!" :rolleyes: