The Assault on Big Food by Jeff Jackson (6/20/03)

Back for Round 3.

After successfully litigating Asbestos and then BIG Tobacco the lawyers have set their sights on their next cash cow and The Colonel, Wendy and Ronald are in the crosshairs.

We are told that fast food is addictive, unhealthy and that they actively market towards children in a sinister plot to increase sales.  Sound familiar?  It should for these are some of the same arguments used to litigate the tobacco industry into a bloody pulp.  Hell, maybe they are right.  I mean technically all food is addictive.  I admit it.  I am addicted to food.  I can't help myself.  I need food.  I can't survive without it.  And neither can you.  So why stop with just fast food?  We need to sue all the farmers and ranchers that also provide us with such an addictive substance.  Forget the fact that without it we really would die a real death and not just some imaginary hardship.  Let's add everyone from Frito-Lay to Joe Smoe peanut farmer to this suit and take care of the harm that they have caused by perpetuating our dependence and addiction.

I hate to break it to you lawyer types but fast food is no more addicting than any other type of food.  We may like it better because of the taste or even the convenience of it but it certainly is not more addictive than tofu.

As for the food itself being unhealthy I doubt you will find a plurality of sane individuals that do not believe truly and deeply that such food is far from the best thing to put in one's body.  Of course we look at how such nutritional information often changes over the years based upon new opinions.  Remember eggs?  We were told how hideous and awful they were once.  Now they are not quiet so evil.  Remember beef?  Same as eggs and now we are being told that beef is not as bad as once thought and is quite good for the body to consume.  Will the fast food burger be the next to have opinions change?  As long as restaurants have not conspired to manipulate nutritional data where is the basis for such an argument?

Again the problem is convenience.  I admit that while I am out on the road working during the week I eat lunch every day at either Burger King or McDonalds because it is easy and fast and lets me get to where I am going next without much hassle.  And last time I was to the doctor my weight was normal, my blood pressure was normal, my cholesterol was normal, etc.  If it is so unhealthy I should have some problems by now.  Maybe the problem lies more with the overall diet of some people rather than just one aspect of their food intake?  Again we are back to suing ALL food.

And I am sure that they market actively to children.  After all their product is not one that wouldn't be used by children.  To insinuate that they should be doing other wise would be like claiming Matel shouldn't market Barbie dolls to young girls.  Hmmm but now that I mention it perhaps Matel needs to be sued for producing dolls that are all so thin and tall and giving less than attractive girls complexes about their looks.  But I digress.

They may market towards children in some areas but ultimately these children don't have any real buying power.  That power is with the parents.  So if fast food is responsible for marketing towards children then the parents of those children must also be held accountable for not watching out for their children's welfare and allowing them to consume such bad bad stuff.  After all I referrer you again to the assertion that few sane individuals truly could believe that greasy fast food is the best thing for a child.  But then again there are many in this country that think you must be insane to have children in the first place.  Maybe that is their way out of culpability.

I know this.  Unless you can prove that McDonalds is putting some weird unnatural substance in their burgers with the express purpose of making me want the Big Mac over a salad this case has no standing.  And without standing such a suit can not even be brought.  For unless Burger King is putting something in the food to make me want it more than any other type of nourishment then I always have the choice of free will to eat something else.  And as soon as I have that free will then fast food is no more addictive than any of the other food I need to survive.  And even if they were putting something in the food you would then have to provide evidence that such food was the causing actual problems and not other types eaten at other times.  Too many variables for a scientifically provable study I dare to suggest.

What we really have here is an attempt at lining the pockets of lawyers even more.  Some talk about how they do these things for the common good.  Then do them for free, probono if you will.  Or at least for a nominal fee instead of millions upon millions of dollars in pay outs.  Just like the suits against BIG Tobacco though this new assault on BIG Food will not do anything other than to make some people rich for a perceived wrong if successful, pump money into cash strapped state coffers, and ultimately never solve any problems.  Tobacco is supposedly so bad for us but it still gets sold legally in by the truck load albeit with hefty taxes and fees on top of the price.

Maybe that is what they want here too.  To be able to regulate and place special taxes on your Super Extra Large Value Meal #4 to the point where it costs $10+ and fleece the American public of more hard earned dollars.  Maybe.  But then again maybe the answer is as simple as greed and people looking for the next big cash payout without contributing much of anything to society themselves.

Practicing law is about discovering the TRUTH.  However today what is practiced in our court rooms is more a drama than anything else designed to manipulate evidence and verdicts to what is best for the the winning lawyer and has nothing to do with actually discovering the truth.  And until we get back to using the courts as a venue to discover the truth we are in dire shape.