Lawyers poised to sue US junk food manufacturers
BMJ 2002; 324 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1414 (Published 15 June 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;324:1414All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Sirs,
I am convinced, that most lawyers cry against something only if fat
money is going to their valets. What about an analysis of litigation cost
impact on medical cost, and secondary on the availability of reasonably
priced medical care for poor people. Just consider the obvious chain:
more litigation --> more insurance premiums --> increased cost for
health provider --> increased cost for patients !
As an example of this simple argument in real practice refer to the boost
of insurance premiums in Australia (Australia’s public hospitals are under
pressure as doctors transfer patients because of insurance crisis.
Christopher Zinn Sydney, BMJ 2002;324:1118).
What concerns lawyers - is there any study analysing the impact of
their (frequently profitable hypocrytic) activity leading to huge
litigation cost onto the overal cost of quality health care? Is there any
study analysing the hidden cost of health provider's defence against
potential litigation (surplus tests to confirm the diagnosis, heaps of
medically redundant administration, physicians stress just to name some in
random)?
Maybe we will find out, that lawyers and litigation are actually more
harmful, than obesity...
Reagards
Jan Stanek
Competing interests: No competing interests
I am appalled when I walk the aisles of the grocery chains at what is
being offered in this country as "food" that has no nutritional benefit.
Aisles are laden with junk that is nothing more than oil, sugars, flour
and food coloring.
But the problem, though exacerbated by our capitalistic economy which
allows people to vote with their dollars, cannot be solved through the
court system.
What is needed to help cure this epidemic is appropriate education
for those making the food selections for their families, along with higher
tax rates on the non-essential foods. Many women today are lacking
fundamental knowledge of what the body actually requires for optimal
functioning, and proper food preparation skills. They are not being
taught this anywhere. Children are being allowed to subsist on foods that
are lacking real nutritional value. Could the "dumbing down" of America
be traced to the fact that our kids are undernourished and lacking
essential fatty acids and adequate nutrients found in their natural form
and not "chemicalized" in enriched food products?
Taxing those foods that are non-essential to our bodies could help
fund the health care crisis, similar to the tobacco tax, while forcing
families to buy more health-building foods with their grocery dollars.
Healthy foods need to be cheap and available, while junk foods need to be
made outrageously expensive. It seems that could only be accomplished
through a tax.
We need to get back to basics. Through education and taxes, could we
would see a return to a more healthful pattern of eating in this country,
which is desperately needed?
Competing interests: No competing interests
While the processed food industry has polluted our bodies and
contributed to obesity, I believe the responsibility lies with each of us
to seek out alternatives. We need to learn about good nutrition, where to
obtain healthy food, and how to cook again, even if simply.
I am always suspicious of lawyers who pursue these type of suits. Is
it the public interest or their wallets they wish to serve?
For accurate and delicious nutrtition information based on the diets
of our ancestors, and current, if sometimes not widely publicized
scientific research, see www.westonaprice.org.
If one would like to learn to grow their own food, I suggest the
Biointensive method of gardening put forth by Ecology Action.
Best of health and happiness to all,
Pam Schoenfeld
Competing interests: No competing interests
One wonders if the legal route is the only one or even
the most productive one to follow with the food industry.
Have we made a serious attempt to demonstrate to the
leaders of the food industry the damage to public
health that some of their products are doing?
I do not believe one can equate the food industry to the
tobacco industry. The lying and denial of the latter is
well documented. Why not make a concerted attempt
by food scientists and government agencies to
dialogue with the industry and see if good results can
be obtained without going through the very expensive
route of the courts, which only make the litiginous
society in the US worse and the lawyers richer.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The logic here is easily shown impeachable,
and it should be removed from readers' offices.
Let me ask the advocates of such lawsuits:
Are they claiming that reducing cigarette
smoking from two packs a day to 1.5 packs a
day would be a satisfactory prescription
for ending the tobacco threat to ones health?
Why not? This would cure the "obesity epidemic",
as some seem ready to call it.
So, the attack on food reduces to something
equivalent to yet another tactic to be endorsed by
the tobacco industry. They haven't quit; have you
noticed? All they need is a good analogy.
Instead of making up analogies on the fly,
how about a little brain power to give useful
advice on how to combat obesity?
Fat is an important
component in anyones diet. It SHOULD be eaten
in moderation, barring serious medical indications
indicating otherwise, in individual cases.
Cholesterol is a major component of brain tissue.
Is it the medical or the legal profession
which is trying to dumb people down, instead of
slimming them down?
If the reader thinks tobacco is harmful, then
press the attack on tobacco; don't be diverted by
the table laden with falsehoods that others
have set.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Another Crisis of Ethics Coming Full Circle
It's about time this issue regarding America's daily diet was
formally addressed. Sure, most of us have abundant food choices, and can
choose a healthy lifestyle. But a large percentage of the population has
fallen "under the ether" regarding junk food (and so much else). Many of
us have learned to trust what we see on T.V. U.S. based multi-national
corporations have spent 3 generations using the media to drill their
message home with friendly "happy" images, catch phrases and snappy music.
I remember the "Coke Adds Life" campaign 20 or so years ago. It surely
seemed like grounds for a lawsuit for misleading advertising back then.
However, when you "sing" these messages, or dramatize them in other ways,
they seem harmless. Yet, the devastating effect of this subtle trickery is
now very clear to any informed person.
Then of course, there's the "turn-key" profit driven franchise to round
out the picture ... so many of them parked in lower class neighborhoods.
So goes the dark side of free enterprise.
People need help. They need to understand themselves, their bodies
and the truly objective basics of good nutrition. They need to understand
the implications of hydrogenated oils AT THE PLACE AND TIME OF PURCHASE.
Hydrogenated oil is a very damaging (albeit 'efficient') food additive.
Ditto for bleached white flour and refined sugar.
There is no time left to dwell on "amicable" long-term solutions.
Sue them. These companies, like tobacco, employ "food scientists". They
do know better. Use the money to re-educate the public. Set a standard
regarding fiber, organic vs. non, sugar content, fat content, chemical
content, etc. Meat, fish & dairy have caused over 90% of food
poisoning cases. Provide tax breaks for "fresh food" establishments.
As a seemingly "progressive" culture, the fact that fast junk food is
regularly served in nearly every school in America is perhaps our greatest
folly. Then there's Ritalin, and the entire drug industry, "feeding" off
the health problems primarily caused by these adulterated foods. Ah, but
that's another story simmering in the background.
Competing interests: No competing interests