Lawyers prepare to rape another industry

www.bbc.co.uk...

The lawyers who took on the big US tobacco companies, and won, have now set their sights on the food industry. Newsnight's science editor, Susan Watts, asks one of them why he has chosen this particular fight.

So Don Barrett has set his sights on another class action lawsuit targeting yet another industry!

I would like at this time to debate the "value" of Mr. Barretts previous work.

The newspaper article is, of course, talking about the Master Settlement Agreement with Big Tobacco. This agreement required tobacco companies to pay out monies from each package of tobacco sold in the United States in yearly payments, in perpetuity. In fact, the agreement bound tobacco companies who were NOT named in the lawsuit to making the same yearly payments, in peretuity.

It was hailed as the "greatest health advance" in history.

But let us look at what really happened.

The other side of the Master Settlement Agreement is that the yearly payments to the individual states was predicated on the big tobacco companies, who were named in the lawsuit, maintaining market share of sales. In short, the big tobacco companies are paying the states to pass laws ensuring that their share of the sales will NOT fall and if it does fall, the payment amounts fall accordingly. The Master Settlement Agreement also prevented any further lawsuits against the companies by individual smokers. They then just simply passed the cost of this agreement onto the individual smoker.

Essentially, the state governments collected a huge amount to yearly taxes from the tobacco companies. The tobacco companies are guaranteed x percentage of market share, the tobacco companies are provided legal protection from further law suits and the smoker pays for all. With the lawyers collecting billions of dollars in fees.

All of this was a lawsuit built on the premise that smokers were "victim" of the tobacco companies because the tobacco companies did not reveal that cigarettes were addictive.

Now - here is the problem. The only way in which cigarettes could be considered addictive was to change the medical definition of the word "addictive". The Surgeon General in 1985 paved the way for this lawsuit by changing the definition of the word addictive. See Surgeon General's Report in the link provided.

tobaccodocuments.org...


Here is a dicusion of the ways in which changing the definition of addiction has changed the world. In short, anything that causes the brain to release dopamine is now considered addictive. But the release of dopamine is what produces a feeling of pleasure in humans. Therefore, the word addiction can now be applied to anything that causes anybody any pleasure at all!

www.huffingtonpost.com...

So it can be seen that the change of definition of the word "addiction" paved the way for this lawsuit that gave all parties exactly what they wanted at tremendous cost to the individual.

Now the same lawyers want to pretend that nobody knows that "evaporated cane juice" is sugar. If they win, they will be richer, the food industry will pass the cost onto the consumer. And do you really think that people will stop eating sugar????

Tired of Control Freaks

Then I guess they could sure gaming companies. They encourage the release of dopamine too. Tons of people are addicted to World of Warcraft.



He played so much he picked up an "American" accent.

lol....

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks




Just another form of regresive taxation on an idem already taxed in such a way......cloked in do-gooderizim.

reply to post by 3chainz


Do you not think that some lawyer is already pondering the possibility?

Tired of Control Freaks

I'd love to see the tobacco industry taken down period.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
I'd love to see the tobacco industry taken down period.

Why? It's not your body. As far as health related costs...simple. If you are a long term smoker, then the health costs are yours to bear...if you can't...oh well...sucks to be you.

It's about freedom of choice. I do not care if someone chooses to poison themselves...that is their problem, not mine. I do not care if someone eats too much...again...not my problem. The "nanny state" mentality of "I'm going to make your decisions for you"...has to go. That my friend...is not Freedom and I refuse to allow that type of over reaching to go unchecked.

It's my body...my life...my house...my car...or whatever. You mind your business and I'll mind mine. I am completely prepared to deal with the repercussions or rewards from my own personal decisions. If someone isn't...then you can feel entitled to "dictate" terms to them...I refuse to allow anyone to do that...I am a big boy and I can take care of myself...and if I can't, I die...how's that?

reply to post by Jeremiah65


The problem is sometimes it's not just your body that's being affected, such as when pregnant women smoke.

So that's just not true.

If it were just their own body I'd say go for it, go ahead and commit the slow suicide since you want to die so much.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Then I am sure that you will not mind when food goes up in price when the food industry is taken down by those lawyers.

Do you really think that the black market will not supply smokers after the tobacco industry is "taken down"???? How foolish and naive!!

Besides anti-smoking has not affected the tobacco industry in the slightest. Even in 2008 when the rest of the economy took a dive, tobacco stocks remained a very lucrative investment.

The only people who have been hurt are smokers, hospitality industry owners and workers, corner store owners, vending machine owners. Big winners - the government (senior partner in the tobacco industry), anti-smoking activists, anti-smoking charities and all their attendant workers.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
I'd love to see the tobacco industry taken down period.

I'd love to see the "police" (local, state, federal) and prison-industrial complex taken down.

Lets be objective here, Sure you can sue fast food companies for selling products that are very low in nutritional value and overall, very bad for you but what do you do about the amount of unhealthy junk food people consume in the average week? They willingly go shopping and they willing buy stuff that is no good for them. Im not advocating that we all start having a salad once a day, not at all. Its people that are making the wrong choices.

I would like to highlight the fact that the price of food that should be being eaten, I.E meats, fresh produce, fruits etc has all gone way up in price. Young children are not being introduced to healthy foods at all and so when they grow up and start having to make a choice of what to eat of course they're going to be picking # food!

I had a burger king today and i knew it was a bad choice, atleast im honest with myself about it, but would i take my child to mcdonalds/BK and feed them that crap? Over my dead body.

I hope the lawyers do sue mainly so it becomes a huge social issue and raise's awareness of where the blame really does lie. There shouldnt be a mcdonalds on every corner but there should definitely be affordable access to better food while you're on the go!

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


I think you misunderstand the original post!

These lawyers are not considering suing the fast food industry. They want to sue the FOOD Industry. They want to search the labels that are put on each food and sue over every little thing. The example they use is the use of the words "evaporated cane juice" instead of the using the word "sugar". Their argument is that the average consumer doesn't know that evaporated cane juice is sugar and is being misled.

On the same food where the words "evaporated cane juice" is described as a ingredient in the food, is the nutrition label that tells the consumer exactly how many grams of carbohydrates are in the food. Then the carbohydrates are broken down into exactly how many grams of carbohydrates are sugars and how many grams are fiber.

So how exactly is the consumer being misled?

And the results of this lawsuit - do you really really believe that any monetary penalty will be applied to lowering the price of healthy food for the consumer? Or, like tobacco, will it be divided between the states and the lawyers? And how will the companies re-coup the cost of the monetary penalty? Like tobacco, will they simply pass the price onto the consumer? And how will the states use their share of the monetary penalty? Do you honestly think the states will subsidize the cost of whole food or will they use it to build golf courses for the rich, like they did with the tobacco money?

By the way - you could have stopped into a grocery store and bought bread, meat and an apple instead of going to MacDonald's. It called consumer choice for a reason.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

I think you misunderstand the original post!

These lawyers are not considering suing the fast food industry. They want to sue the FOOD Industry. They want to search the labels that are put on each food and sue over every little thing. The example they use is the use of the words "evaporated cane juice" instead of the using the word "sugar". Their argument is that the average consumer doesn't know that evaporated cane juice is sugar and is being misled.

On the same food where the words "evaporated cane juice" is described as a ingredient in the food, is the nutrition label that tells the consumer exactly how many grams of carbohydrates are in the food. Then the carbohydrates are broken down into exactly how many grams of carbohydrates are sugars and how many grams are fiber.

So how exactly is the consumer being misled?

And the results of this lawsuit - do you really really believe that any monetary penalty will be applied to lowering the price of healthy food for the consumer? Or, like tobacco, will it be divided between the states and the lawyers? And how will the companies re-coup the cost of the monetary penalty? Like tobacco, will they simply pass the price onto the consumer? And how will the states use their share of the monetary penalty? Do you honestly think the states will subsidize the cost of whole food or will they use it to build golf courses for the rich, like they did with the tobacco money?

Yeah i think maybe i hit off on a rant in my l;ast post - it happens. I get what your saying and agree with many of the points.

By the way - you could have stopped into a grocery store and bought bread, meat and an apple instead of going to MacDonald's. It called consumer choice for a reason.

Yes it is called consumer choice, which is why i chose to eat fast food that day instead of a sandwich - but like i said, i understood it was a bad choice but to someone else, eating fast food is a "normality" upwards of 2-3 times a week for some people. What do they expect when they start piling on the pounds?

Tired of Control Freaks

Like i said, i wasn't advocating that people start eating a salad every day but its a joke when half the stuff on your shopping list is junk food. Suing the food industry is a silly idea when the consumers themselves are nothing more than uninformed and uncaring plebs.