WOOT! No money for you fat boy!

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 11, 2004, 12:22 am

This is the best news I have heard in a long time... as some of you may remember from my previous rants on this topic nothing makes me more furious than some fat bastard saying someone else "made" them fat. Hell I'm fat as hell right now, due to my slow metabolism but you know what? I can stay thin by... dare I say... DIET and EXERCISE! It dosen't matter what your metabolism is or is not, if you make the committment it can be done, and it's certantly not anyone elses fault you choose to SuperSize everything for the past 20 years

It's a great day!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/10/fat.l ... index.html

Cheers!
Marb

valryte · Post by **valryte** » March 11, 2004, 12:37 am

I just hope the law simply states that they can't be sued because it made you fat.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 11, 2004, 1:03 am

As much as I think suing a company for "making you fat" is ridiculous, I am quite pleased with how fast food restaurants are now offering healthier alternatives to their normal menu items. This is an example about how sometimes you need an extremist group (or individual) to get people to start looking at something important.

I have learned that people in general are really ignorant when it comes to nutrition. I wish they focused on it more in schools because I've met very few people who have a clue what their bodies really need.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 11, 2004, 10:09 am

That brings up a question.. is there anything about nutrition in American schools? We had a class in 7th and 9th grade which was basically "Cooking and nutrition" where we learned to cook, learned about nutrition, learned about balancing a diet etc etc. I know I learned a lot and am happy for it now (even though I hated the class back then).

Deward · Post by **Deward** » March 11, 2004, 11:46 am

I don't think they need a law saying you can't sue for this reason. The lawsuits are frivolous and the judges have been throwing them out right and left. That is the role of the judicial system in cases like this. I agree that these cases are totally without basis and should never come to trial but I think we need to set limits on all cases, not just this variety.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 11, 2004, 12:00 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/polit ... RG.html?th

Since it requires a free registration, here is a clip for those not suscribed:

WASHINGTON, March 10 — Saying overeating is a problem for individuals, not the courts, the House easily approved legislation on Wednesday to bar people from suing restaurants on the ground that their food makes customers fat.

It goes on to comment that the WH is backing the bill as well, but that it might have some issues in the Senate.

Here is my favourite quote of the article:

"This bill says, `Don't run off and file a lawsuit if you are fat,' " said Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "It says, `Look in the mirror because you're the one to blame.' "

Psyloche · Post by **Psyloche** » March 11, 2004, 12:16 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:It goes on to comment that the WH is backing the bill as well, but that it might have some issues in the Senate.

I read that as, "Waffle House is backing the bill as well" til I realized that would make no sense at all. Back on topic... I think this law is great, anyone who even tries going after fast food chains or any restaurant for making them fat should be starved to death. Who forces you to shovel all that fucking food in your mouth with your diet coke?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » March 11, 2004, 12:18 pm

My thoughts are similar to Drewards. Although I certainly think the lawsuits have no merit, I am less thrilled about the specific fix in this case. Namely legislation saying these in particular can't be brought. My preference would be for broader tort reform.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 11, 2004, 12:18 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/polit ... RG.html?th

Since it requires a free registration, here is a clip for those not suscribed:

WASHINGTON, March 10 — Saying overeating is a problem for individuals, not the courts, the House easily approved legislation on Wednesday to bar people from suing restaurants on the ground that their food makes customers fat.
It goes on to comment that the WH is backing the bill as well, but that it might have some issues in the Senate.

Here is my favourite quote of the article:
"This bill says, `Don't run off and file a lawsuit if you are fat,' " said Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "It says, `Look in the mirror because you're the one to blame.' "

Yes....yes....yes.

This is very good to hear from our government. I would love to see this trend of blaming everyone but yourself, go away or at least lessen. People need to start being responsible for their own actions again someday.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 11, 2004, 12:22 pm

Kelshara: In 7th and 8th grade, I had "home economics" for a semester each year. In 7th grade, we learned cooking. We made brownies from a mix, cookied macaroni and cheese with polka dots (hot dog slices)... maybe a pie or something? There were 4 dishes total. In 8th grade we learned sewing, so that wasn't any help.

In high school, there were a variety of home ec classes, none were required, so I didn't take any. I know we had "family planning" and "multicultural foods." If I remember correctly, multicultural foods did not have any emphasis on nutrition at all. I didn't know anyone who took family planning.

I would bet that that's a pretty typical educational experience as far as nutrition goes.

Oh: There were lots of nutrition posters up in the cafeteria.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 11, 2004, 12:30 pm

people learn good food habits as small children. if your parents give you Lucky Charms and shit like that all day as a little kid, you are going to learn to favor purified sugars, and it will take a long time to come back around to liking fructose and other natural sugars found in fruits, etc.

this is something that is 99.5% on the shoulders of parents, so i don't really think there is much schools can do about it.

other than offering nutritious meals at the cafeteria, but cheaper food tends to be less nutritious in those settings.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 11, 2004, 12:39 pm

Voronwë wrote:people learn good food habits as small children. if your parents give you Lucky Charms and shit like that all day as a little kid, you are going to learn to favor purified sugars, and it will take a long time to come back around to liking fructose and other natural sugars found in fruits, etc.

this is something that is 99.5% on the shoulders of parents, so i don't really think there is much schools can do about it.

other than offering nutritious meals at the cafeteria, but cheaper food tends to be less nutritious in those settings.

The food the schools provide now are horrible. It's all fried garbage. At least in my kids school it is. It's very disturbing. I am hoping next year my wife's night classes don't coincide with the every Wednesday PTA meeting, cause I want to go and raise a stink about this exact issue.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 11, 2004, 1:15 pm

We've got to get back to those old-fashioned principles of personal responsibility, of common sense, and get away from this new culture where everybody plays the victim and blames other people for their problems

Thank God. Exactly.

Many Democrats opposed the bill, as they did a similar liability waiver the House passed for gun manufacturers last year.

"The courts are handling the cases as they should -- if they're frivolous, they're thrown out," said Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat who opposes the legislation.

Those that oppose it are idiots. What's to oppose? The fact that the cases are thrown out doesn't address the fact that those being sued still have to pay their legal counsel to prepare for court, research to be ready in case the suit isn't thrown out, etc. Frivolous suits shouldn't happen in the first place.

Gotta side with the republicans on this one, and those dems that agree with it.

"There's no justification for that," a Democratic Judiciary Committee aide said. "These are not poor struggling businesses who can't defend themselves against unfounded legal claims."

Statements like this really make me laugh as, correct me if I'm wrong, government officials (not sure starting at what level) don't pay taxes. Ever again in their life.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 11, 2004, 1:43 pm

Personally I think a penalty system to keep frivolous lawsuits in check would have been better than an all-out ban. Like if some guy sues McD's because he's in horrible health after eatting it everyday for a full year, well then of course he's a moron and deserves to be in poor health, and if he went through with the lawsuit and it was thrown out, either have a fine or McD's can sue for damages and reimbursement of legal fees. That would keep the stupid ones down somewhat I'd think, and still allow for personal liberties everyone should be entitled to.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 11, 2004, 2:30 pm

Voronwë wrote:people learn good food habits as small children. if your parents give you Lucky Charms and shit like that all day as a little kid, you are going to learn to favor purified sugars, and it will take a long time to come back around to liking fructose and other natural sugars found in fruits, etc.

this is something that is 99.5% on the shoulders of parents, so i don't really think there is much schools can do about it.

other than offering nutritious meals at the cafeteria, but cheaper food tends to be less nutritious in those settings.

I disagree. Eating habits don't mean much if the person isn't given the information about nutrition they need. Its just like cigarettes. Education about the negative effects of cigarettes has a preventative effect as well as inspiring people to quit. I'm surprised that you would think that nutritional education would not have much of an effect. Knowledge is power. Not educating these kids about how diet plays a role in preventing cancer and a gamut of other health problems is denying them the power to improve thier lives.

Part of the problem with the fast food industry and the crux of the lawsuit that spawned this whole debate is the use of the word "meal. " The use of the word meal suggests that it fits into the meal requirements of your average adult. The fact that some "meals" contain as many calories as the average adult needs in a day could construed as false advertising.

Yes, fried food is bad, most people know that. The problem is, most people do NOT know how many calories they should be consuming, they do NOT know how much fiber they need in their diets, they do NOT know that iceburg lettuce is worthless nutritionally, they do NOT know that corn is not a vegetable. I could go on and on and on.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 11, 2004, 2:49 pm

Part of the problem with the fast food industry and the crux of the lawsuit that spawned this whole debate is the use of the word "meal. " The use of the word meal suggests that it fits into the meal requirements of your average adult. The fact that some "meals" contain as many calories as the average adult needs in a day could construed as false advertising.

Seriously. People can't be that stupid to think "meal" at a fast food restaurant means a well rounded nutritional feast.

Yes, fried food is bad, most people know that. The problem is, most people do NOT know how many calories they should be consuming, they do NOT know how much fiber they need in their diets, they do NOT know that iceburg lettuce is worthless nutritionally, they do NOT know that corn is not a vegetable. I could go on and on and on.

The difference is that information is out there. Fast food places have provided nutritional information for years. It's up to the consumer to actually read it and comprehend what it's saying. You can't expect Taco Bell to tell people how much fiber they need. All the things you listed I would classify as consumer information and are easily found if one is so inclined to look. It's not the responsibility of a restaurant to make sure you know what to do with the information they provide.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 11, 2004, 2:55 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Part of the problem with the fast food industry and the crux of the lawsuit that spawned this whole debate is the use of the word "meal. " The use of the word meal suggests that it fits into the meal requirements of your average adult. The fact that some "meals" contain as many calories as the average adult needs in a day could construed as false advertising.
Seriously. People can't be that stupid to think "meal" at a fast food restaurant means a well rounded nutritional feast.

Yes, fried food is bad, most people know that. The problem is, most people do NOT know how many calories they should be consuming, they do NOT know how much fiber they need in their diets, they do NOT know that iceburg lettuce is worthless nutritionally, they do NOT know that corn is not a vegetable. I could go on and on and on.
The difference is that information is out there. Fast food places have provided nutritional information for years. It's up to the consumer to actually read it and comprehend what it's saying. You can't expect Taco Bell to tell people how much fiber they need. All the things you listed I would classify as consumer information and are easily found if one is so inclined to look. It's not the responsibility of a restaurant to make sure you know what to do with the information they provide.

You totally missed my point in both cases.

I never said "well rounded" meal. In this case, the issue is caloric consumption, which in no case fits into the definition of a meal. Not even close. I also never said I agreed with plaintiff, but it does pose the question of what is a "meal"

I also never said the fast food joints have any responsibility. My point is that most people don't know what 1000 calories means to them. They don't have the education to interpret the nutritional information they are given. That is the responisibilty of the educational system.

Next time try reading my post a little closer.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 11, 2004, 2:55 pm

Yeah, but surely it is not McDonald's job to educate people? This is a lot different from the cigarette cases. Taken in a light least favourable to teh tobaco industry, there, the tobaco companies knew their product was both addictive and contributed to cancer, but they continuely professed that neither was true. Eventually, they were forced to concede the carcinogenic effects, but persisted that it was non-addictive.

McDonalds, nor any other fast food place to my knowledge, has suggested that it's foods are low in fat, low in calories, etc. They are not lying to you. Sure, everytime some overwight person comes in for an order, they don't say "Hey, fatty, this food is going to make you fatter." But they also arn't out there advertising the McDonalds weight loss plan. (Subway might want to be careful if it is misrepresenting the fat content of its foods).

Now, cerials, maybe there is a point there. The comercials for the giant bowl of sugar does proport to be "an important part of a balanced breakfast." That is clearly a lie when it comes to things like Cocco puffs. Once you add a bowl of any of teh mostly sugar cerials, it will be impossible to have a balanced breakfast.

But fast food restraunts, they make no such claims.

I certainly agree with you, generally, that people are poorly educated. About a lot more than just nutrition.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 11, 2004, 2:57 pm

OK, in short my opinion:

Fast food industry = no fault, no responsibilty
Educational system = responsibility to educate

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 11, 2004, 2:59 pm

I understood what you were saying just fine. I was not disagreeing with you. Just making it clear that, unlike cigarettes, the fast food industry is not responsible for the situation.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 11, 2004, 3:03 pm

Lalanae wrote:Next time try reading my post a little closer.

I read it just fine, thanks. That I interpreted it different than you meant is an entirely different matter and no fault of mine.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 11, 2004, 3:05 pm

Lalanae wrote:
Aaeamdar wrote:Yeah, but surely it is not McDonald's job to educate people? This is a lot different from the cigarette cases. Taken in a light least favourable to teh tobaco industry, there, the tobaco companies knew their product was both addictive and contributed to cancer, but they continuely professed that neither was true. Eventually, they were forced to concede the carcinogenic effects, but persisted that it was non-addictive.

McDonalds, nor any other fast food place to my knowledge, has suggested that it's foods are low in fat, low in calories, etc. They are not lying to you. Sure, everytime some overwight person comes in for an order, they don't say "Hey, fatty, this food is going to make you fatter." But they also arn't out there advertising the McDonalds weight loss plan. (Subway might want to be careful if it is misrepresenting the fat content of its foods).

Now, cerials, maybe there is a point there. The comercials for the giant bowl of sugar does proport to be "an important part of a balanced breakfast." That is clearly a lie when it comes to things like Cocco puffs. Once you add a bowl of any of teh mostly sugar cerials, it will be impossible to have a balanced breakfast.

But fast food restraunts, they make no such claims.
See above

Edit: I'll try not to be so snippy but I hate it when people misinterpret and read into my posts.

Fast food industry = no fault, no responsibilty
Educational system = responsibility to educate

Don't know where you went to school but in Ontario, health education (manditory till grade 10) Food groups and healthy eating are taught. Fact of the matter is parents and the individual are to blame for being obese.

Parents buy the food the kids consume and quite often it is fast food in this day of both parents working etc. Adults, making the claim that they didnt know or are clueless as to what constitutes healthy eating are frankly lying or stupid.

I do not know one overweight person who has not investigated their weight issues and knows more about food/calories etc than I will ever know.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 11, 2004, 3:11 pm

Nutritional education is not required in the school system I went through. It was included in some home ec electives.

Adults, making the claim that they didnt know or are clueless as to what constitutes healthy eating are frankly lying or stupid.

Adults never claim they don't know. They in fact THINK they know, but they don't. Bakara and I have to deal with his 6 year old and his poor food habits because his mom think iceburg lettuce and corn are part of the "vegetable group." I had to educate Bakara on nutrition when we got together and he eats healthier now and pays better attention to what he puts into his body.

Most people's concept of healthy eating boils down to "fried foods bad."

edit: and this is more than just a weight issue, another misconception of most people: that poor diet means you get fat. I've seen a lot of skinny people who eat worse than some overweight people.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » March 11, 2004, 3:45 pm

Lalanae wrote:I also never said the fast food joints have any responsibility. My point is that most people don't know what 1000 calories means to them. They don't have the education to interpret the nutritional information they are given. That is the responisibilty of the educational system.

Although nutrition is a valid subject for education, I think the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the individual. Through books, magazines, TV, the internet etc. we have access to an incredibably vast amount of information. If someone wants to know about nutrition there is ample opportunity for them to learn.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 11, 2004, 5:03 pm

Another issue, is that even were schools to require education on nutrition - the FDA's 'food pyramid' for example, is COMPLETELY upside down as to what is actually healthy for you. So what's being taught is wrong to begin with.

Just look at how many suckers have bought into Atkins and think it's the next best thing since sex. Course, if they had any clue, and did any research into the long-term effects of said diet, they'd avoid it like a plague. Oh goody, you lost some weight. You can do that by starving yourself too, how healthy is that? Ask Karen Carpenter.

The short of it is that people need to be responsible for themselves. Not depend on everyone else to tell them how they should do every single thing in their life, or to warn them of every single thing that is potentially bad or dangerous for them. Parents need to friggin' teach their kids and not leave it up to MTV.

emmer · Post by **emmer** » March 13, 2004, 9:00 am

What Siji said.

I was taught about nutrition as a kid in school, but the information was wrong. The whole thing which makes nutrition such a pain in the ass, for me at least, is the staggering amount of misinformation out there.

Take the Atkins diet. It seems like half the country is on this diet. It's roughly based on the principle that there are several components in food which make you fat. If you eliminate one of these catalysts (carbohydrates) to the fat making process by eating nothing but meat and cheese, you'll lose weight. You will also probably lose about 20 years off your lifespan by clogging up your arteries. At least you'll look good at your funeral though, right?

I think there are a lot of people out there who aren't being told the whole story. This is a situation that can and should be remedied immediatley. The FDA needs to sort through their bullshit, get their facts up to date and get the right information to the public. The facts are out there, and most schools already have health programs and courses. They just need the RIGHT info.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 13, 2004, 11:43 am

Siji wrote:
We've got to get back to those old-fashioned principles of personal responsibility, of common sense, and get away from this new culture where everybody plays the victim and blames other people for their problems
Thank God. Exactly.

Many Democrats opposed the bill, as they did a similar liability waiver the House passed for gun manufacturers last year.

"The courts are handling the cases as they should -- if they're frivolous, they're thrown out," said Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat who opposes the legislation.

Those that oppose it are idiots. What's to oppose? The fact that the cases are thrown out doesn't address the fact that those being sued still have to pay their legal counsel to prepare for court, research to be ready in case the suit isn't thrown out, etc. Frivolous suits shouldn't happen in the first place.

Gotta side with the republicans on this one, and those dems that agree with it.

"There's no justification for that," a Democratic Judiciary Committee aide said. "These are not poor struggling businesses who can't defend themselves against unfounded legal claims."
Statements like this really make me laugh as, correct me if I'm wrong, government officials (not sure starting at what level) don't pay taxes. Ever again in their life.

There might be EXTREME cases where say a smoothie bar at a gym or a certain resturant stressing healthy food had some sort of secret ingredient that was horrible for you and could quickly make you obese, theres no reason to introduce a bill, becouse at least im hoping most judges have some common sence.

About the last statement I THINK even the presedent has to pay taxes, and i doubt anyone else could be tax free for the rest of there life.